RULING

MAJORITY OPINION

TANKO AMADU JSC:

INTRODUCTION:

(1) My Lords, access to justice is a critical indicia and component of the rule of law. As stated by Dr. Date-Bah JSC, in ADOFO VS. ATTORNEY-GENERAL [20032005] 1 GLR 239. “unhampered access to the courts is an important element of the rule of law.” The concept seeks to inter alia prevent the refusal to grant an Applicant the opportunity to pursue just claims before the courts and the avoidance of such procedural impediments that may thwart the final resolution of disputes albeit through due process.

(2) In pursuance of this objective and in the interest of justice, the framers of the 1992 Constitution have even where statutorily, a litigant is out of time in pursuing a particular claim, whether by appeal or review, created a window by way of a special leave procedure to accommodate such a litigant upon the demonstration that, the matter is worth considering, either in the public interest and/or development of our jurisprudence.

(3) It must however be noted that, the admission of a matter pursuant to special leave from this court, is not automatic nor will it be granted based on a prayer for leave ordinarily from the court which mainly requires the satisfaction of a justifiable reason for failure to pursue the action within time, as well as a prima facie demonstration that the action is not frivolous. Additionally, for this court to grant special leave to a litigant to pursue a matter before it, the litigant must demonstrate a clear error, which prima facie is likely to be reversed as well as a justifiable essence in the interest of justice. Indeed the public interest and the need to bring an end to the litigation are also essential requirements. See ANSAH VS. ATSEM [2001-2002] SCGLR 906; KOTEY VS. KOLETEY [2000] SCGLR 417.

(4) It is one of such situations that confronts us in the instant application resulting from what appears to be a result of the tardiness of the Applicants’ previous lawyers. The Applicants by this application have invited this court to extend time for them to file an appeal against the decision of the National House of Chiefs following a dismissal of an earlier application filed more than one year after the decision of the said House. For the Respondents, the Applicants’ application is misplaced, as the same is inconsistent with Rules 7(1) and 30 of C.I. 16, and the decision of this court in **IMBEAH VS. ABABIO [1999-