REPUBLIC v. JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE BAWKU TRADITIONAL COUNCIL & OTHERS
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ADJEI, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- LOVELACE-JOHNSON, J.A.
- ACKAH-YENSU, J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Applicant sought judicial review to quash a decision by the Judicial Committee of the Bawku Traditional Council and to prevent interference in the Tanga Division's traditional administration. The High Court dismissed the application, and the Applicant appealed on grounds of procedural errors, particularly the acceptance of late filings by the Respondents. The Court ruled that the trial High Court had jurisdiction to admit the late filings under Order 81 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) and dismissed the appeal. The judgment emphasized the principles of purposive interpretation and the waiver of procedural irregularities to achieve justice and avoid unnecessary delays.
J U D G M E N T
ADJEI,J.A:
The Applicant/Applicant/Appellant (hereafter called the Applicant) filed an application for Judicial Review in the nature of certiorari at the High Court Bolgatanga to quash the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Bawku Traditional Council delivered on 16th May, 2013 and a letter dated 14th June, 2013 and titled “Deposition as a Chief of Tanga.”
The Applicant further sought an Order for injunction to restrain Bawku Naba Asigri Abubrago Azoba II from interfering with the Applicant’s traditional administration of the Tanga Division and/or enskinning any person as Tanga Naba on the ground that no person is entitled to be enskinned while the Applicant continued to hold office as Tinga Naba.
The Respondents/Respondents/Respondents would be referred to as the Respondent in this appeal. The appeal before this court is an interlocutory appeal arising from a ruling delivered by the High Court Bolgatanga on an application filed by the Applicant herein to set aside, “Affidavit in Opposition” filed on the 16th January, 2014 and “Statement of Case for the Respondents”, filed on 23rd January, 2014 as having been filed out of time and without leave of the trial court and were therefore irregular and contrary to law and procedure.
On 19th March, 2014, the trial High Court dismissed the Applicant’s application as without merits and adopted the two aforesaid processes filed out of time under Order 81 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 C. I. 47. The Applicant dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial High Court Judge delivered on 19th March, 2014 filed an interlocutory appeal against same to this Court on 31st March, 2014. The grounds of appeal filed by the Applicant are as follows:
“i. That the learned trial Judge’s decision to admit the Respondents’ affidavit in opposition and statement of case both filed out of time was made without or in excess of jurisdiction.
ii. That the learned trial Judge erred when he refused or failed to follow the principle of law laid down in the cases of, Tindana (No.1) vs Chief of Defence Staff & Attorney-General (No.1) [2011]2 SCGLR 724,731 and Tindana (No. 2) vs. Chief of Defence Staff & Attorney General (No. 2) [2011]2 SCGLR 732,743-745 on the ground that the Applicant’s case was distinguishable from the same.
iii. That the learned trial Judge misconceived the principle of law laid down in the case of Halle & Sons SA vs. Bank of Ghana & Warm Weather Enterprise Ltd. [2011]1 SCGLR 37