2023
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Yonny Kulendi JSC delivered the Supreme Court’s ruling on an application invoking supervisory jurisdiction to quash a High Court decision. The Interested Party had moved the High Court under Order 66 Rule 3 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) to punish the Applicant—daughter of the deceased, Richard Nkrumah—for allegedly intermeddling with the estate. The High Court dismissed the Applicant’s preliminary objection and asserted jurisdiction to proceed. In the Supreme Court, the Applicant argued that intermeddling is a criminal offence, the Rules of Court Committee cannot create crimes or confer jurisdiction, prosecutions lie with the Attorney-General under Article 88(3), and criminal procedure defaults to Act 30. The Court agreed: it held Order 66 Rule 3 exceeded the Committee’s remit, intermeddling is created by PNDCL 111 section 17, only the Attorney-General may prosecute, and proceedings commenced by civil originating motion were a nullity. The High Court’s ruling was quashed; no costs.
KULENDI JSC:-
INTRODUCTION
The Applicant invokes our supervisory jurisdiction for an order of certiorari to quash the ruling of the High Court (Commercial Division), dated 7th June, 2022. The said ruling entailed the dismissal of a preliminary legal objection to the High Court’s jurisdiction to entertain an application for an order to punish the Applicant for intermeddling pursuant to Order 66 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47).
BACKGROUND
On the 19th of May, 2022, the Interested Party herein filed a motion on notice under Order 66 Rule 3 of C.I. 47 praying for an order to punish the Applicant herein for intermeddling in the estate of one Richard Nkrumah (deceased), the father of the Applicant who died intestate on 31st October 2019.
The Applicant caused her solicitors to file a Notice of Preliminary Legal Objection on 2nd June, 2022 contending that: intermeddling under Order 66 of C.I. 47 being a criminal offence cannot be prosecuted by private citizens via motion in civil proceedings; that the Rules of Court Committee acted in excess of its jurisdiction by purporting to create a criminal offence under Order 66 Rule 4 of C.I. 47; and that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain an application to punish for intermeddling in the manner prayed by the Interested Party.
After hearing both sides, the Trial Court, by a ruling dated 7th June, 2022, dismissed the preliminary legal objection and found that an action to punish for intermeddling may be commenced by civil proceedings and therefore, it had the jurisdiction to hear the Interested Party’s application. It is against this ruling that the Applicant has brought the instant motion invoking our supervisory jurisdiction.
GROUNDS FOR APPLICATION
The grounds of this application as stated on the face of the motion paper are as follows:
i.Error Patent on the Face of the Record.
The High Court (Commercial Division 2) Accra, committed an error of law patent on the face of the record when it held that intermeddling proceedings can be commenced by civil proceedings in the form of Originating Notice of Motion under the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 (C.I. 47) notwithstanding the provisions of Article 88(3) of the 1992 Constitution and the provisions of Part III of the Criminal Procedure Act 1960 (Act 30);
ii. Lack of Jurisdiction.
The High Court (Commercial Division 2) Accra wrongfully assumed jurisdiction when it dismissed the Applicant’s preliminary objection to the Co