SAMUEL BONNEY & 4,174 OTHERS v. GHANA PORTS AND HARBOURS AUTHORITY
May 29, 2014
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ANSAH JSC
- OWUSU(MS) JSC
- DOTSE JSC
- YEBOAH JSC
- BONNIE JSC
- GBADEGBE JSC
May 29, 2014
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
R U L I N G
BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC.
Rule 54 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (CI 16) provides as follows;
54. Grounds for review
The court may review a decision made or given by it on the ground of
Exceptional circumstances which have resulted in a miscarriage of justice or
The discovery of new important matter of evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicants knowledge or could not be produced by the applicant at the time when the decision was given.
The remit of this rule has been expounded in a number of cases.
In the case of Afranie II vrs Quarcoo [1992]GLR561, at 591-592,Wuaku JSC said:
“There is only one Supreme Court. A review court is not an appellate court to sit in judgment over the Supreme Court”.
Then in the case of Mechanical Lloyd Assembly Plant Ltd v Nartey [1987-88]2 GLR598 the Supreme Court said,
“The review jurisdiction is not intended as a try on by a party losing an appeal neither is it meant to be resorted to as an emotional re-actionto an unfavourable judgment”
In the case of Quartey v Central Services Co Ltd [1996-97]SCGLR 398; this court restated the remit of the review jurisdiction as follows
“ A review jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction, conferred on the court, and the court would exercise that special jurisdiction in favour of an applicant only in exceptional circumstances. This implies that such an application should satisfy the court that there has been some fundamental or basic error which the court inadvertently committed in the course of considering its judgment and which fundamental error has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice.”
These and a long line of cases are often cited as authorities that speak against the use of the review process to overturn decisions given by the Supreme Court except for exceptional circumstances that have occasioned a miscarriage of justice. They actually show the daunting task an applicant faces in trying to get a decision given by the Ordinary bench reviewed.
However, it must be said that difficult as it is to get the Supreme Court to overturn its own decision, it is not an impossibility, and that whenever the Supreme Court has found exceptional circumstances, it has readily conceded and reviewed its decision. In the recent case of Glencore AG v Volta Aluminum Company Ltd, review Motion No J7/10/2014 dated 15th April 2014, the Supreme Court graciously accepted an error it had made that had occasioned a miscarriage of justice and readi
AI Generated Summary
In a Rule 54/Article 133(1) review application, former Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority workers—originally led by Clement Agbesi—sought to overturn a Supreme Court ordinary bench decision that treated their fresh suit as statute‑barred under section 92(1) of the GPHA Act (PNDCL 160). They asserted exceptional circumstances, arguing section 92(1) is unconstitutional under Articles 17(1), 37(1), and 190 of the 1992 Constitution and inconsistent with section 2 of the State Proceedings Act, urging a purposive reading limiting it to maritime actions and invoking equitable reliefs under section 6(1) of NRCD 54. The review panel (per Baffoe‑Bonnie JSC) reiterated the narrow, exceptional scope of review, noted that constitutionality was raised and implicitly rejected by the ordinary bench when applying section 92(1), and refused to revisit previously determined issues. Finding the application a re‑argument of the appeal with no fundamental inadvertent error or new evidence, the court unanimously dismissed the review.