Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
January 22, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CORAM
The Applicant, through his Counsel filed the instant application praying this court for an order of certiorari, directed at the Respondent herein, for an order to bring into this court for the purpose of quashing and quashing of the decision of the District Court, Agogo presided over by Her Worship Cynthia Nuerkie Blagogee dated 27th March, 2024 and a further order prohibiting the said court from further hearing the matter. The Applicant spelt out the following as grounds for the application.
a. That the trial Magistrate committed an error patent on the face of the record by proceeding with trial upon coming to a clear realization from documentary evidence on record that the Defendant was not a proper party to the suit.
b. That the trial Magistrate breached the audi alteram principle of natural justice when she proceeded with trial without affording Juliana Boatey-Agyei an opportunity to be heard since it became apparent, she was the proper party to be directly affected by the court's decision concerning the subject matter in issue and not the Defendant.
Order 55 rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, C.I 47 provides that an application for:
(a). An order in the nature of Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari
or Quo warranto; or
(b) An injunction restraining a person from acting in any public
office in which the person is not entitled to act; or
(c) any other injunction shall be made by way of an application
for judicial review to the High Court.
Section 16 of the Courts Act, 1993, Act 459 as amended stipulates thus;
16. "The High Court shall have supervisory jurisdiction over all
lower courts and any lower adjudicating authority: and may, in the exercise of that jurisdiction, issue orders and directions including orders in the nature of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition and quo warranto for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement of its supervisory powers"
The power of the High Court to exercise that supervisory jurisdiction to issue Prerogative Writs is provided under Article 141 of the 1992 Fourth Republican Constitution of Ghana and Section 16 of the Courts Act, 1993, Act 459 as amended. Article 141 of the 1992 Constitution provides as follows:
"141. The High Court shall have supervisory jurisdiction over all
lower Courts and any lower adjudicating authority, and may, in the exercise of that jurisdiction, issue orders and directions for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement of its
AI Generated Summary
Justice Frederick Tetteh of the High Court considered an application by the Applicant seeking prerogative relief to quash the District Court, Agogo decision dated 27 March 2024 (Her Worship Cynthia Nuerkie Blagogee) and to prohibit further hearing. The Applicant argued two grounds: a patent error on the face of the record because the trial continued despite documentary evidence indicating the named defendant was not the proper party, and a breach of audi alteram partem for failing to hear Juliana Boatey-Agyei, said to be directly affected. The court set out the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 141 and Section 16, the consolidated Bank of Ghana decision’s grounds for certiorari, and the Tsatsu Tsikata standard limiting intervention to manifest patent errors of law. On the facts, the court found Juliana Boatey-Agyei was not a party to the suit and there was no refused attempt to join her, concluded no patent error was shown, dismissed the application, granted one month to appeal (deadline 21 February 2025), and made no order as to costs.