May 29, 2014
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
A seven‑member panel of the Supreme Court of Ghana, presided over by Chief Justice G. T. Wood and authored by Justice P. Baffoe‑Bonnie, dismissed a review application brought by former workers of the Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority (GPHA), led by Clement Agbesi. The applicants asked the Court to set aside the ordinary bench’s 29 January 2014 judgment that had affirmed the Court of Appeal’s application of the 12‑month limitation in section 92(1) of PNDCL 160 to their contractual claims, arguing that the decision was per incuriam and unconstitutional under articles 17(1), 37(1) and 190 of the 1992 Constitution and section 2 of the State Proceedings Act. Tracing the litigation from the High Court through the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court, the panel reiterated that review is a special, exceptional jurisdiction under article 133(1) and rule 54 of CI 16, not a second appeal. Because the constitutionality of section 92(1) had already been raised and impliedly rejected by the ordinary bench, and no new matter or fundamental error causing miscarriage of justice was shown, the Court declined to revisit the merits and rejected the application.
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
(a) Exceptional circumstances which have resulted in a miscarriage of justice or
(b) 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 readily re