SAMSON ODDOYE & OTHERS v. THE GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- C. J. HONYENUGA J.A. (PRESIDING)
- AVRIL LOVELACE-JOHNSON J.A.
- HENRY A. KWOFIE J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Administrative Law
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellants, law students who failed multiple subjects and were required to repeat their class, sought the remarking of their scripts by an independent party, which was initially rejected by the High Court. Subsequent motions for a review based on newly discovered evidence (a Handbook) were also dismissed. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the trial court's decisions, affirming that the appellants failed to establish a statutory duty requiring the respondent to remark the scripts. The appeal was dismissed on all grounds, with concurrences from the other Justices.
HENRY KWOFIE J.A
This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court (Human Rights Division) given on the 31st July 2017. The trial High Court in that ruling, refused the appellants’ application pursuant to Order 42 rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules (C.I. 47) for a review of the
Court’s earlier decision made on 26th April 2017 by which the Court dismissed the appellants’ application for mandamus.
The facts leading to the instant appeal are that the appellants were part of the students of the Ghana School of Law admitted for the professional law course in the 2015/2016 academic year. They took part in the June and September 2016 professional Law Examination that is the first and second semester examinations. After the second semester examination, the results of both the first and second semester examinations were published. Following the publication of the results for the June and September 2016 Professional Law Examinations, the appellants among other students failed in more than two subject papers. In consequence, all those failed students including the appellants were required to repeat their class. The appellants petitioned the respondent herein requesting that their failed scripts should be submitted to an independent third party for remarking. The respondent refused to accede to the appellants’ request, explaining that all scripts including the appellants’ failed scripts had been remarked already. Dissatisfied with the refusal by the respondent, the appellants filed a motion on notice pursuant to Order 55 rule 1 of C.I. 47 seeking an order of mandamus “requiring the respondent herein to effect the remarking of the papers of the applicants herein deemed to have been below the pass mark”. The application was vehemently opposed by the respondent. After hearing the application, the High Court on 26th April 2017 dismissed the appellants’ application for mandamus on amongst other grounds that the appellants had failed to establish the fundamental requirement in an application for mandamus that there was a statutory public duty imposed on the respondent to remark the failed scripts which the respondent had failed to do. Following the decision of the High Court on 26th April 2017 dismissing the application for mandamus, the appellants’ filed a Motion for a review of the judgment pursuant to Order 42 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 (C.I. 47). The ground upon which the application for review was brought by the appellants was