2013
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Fredrick Salim Hanawi filed for a certiorari to the Supreme Court to quash a High Court decision involving dismissal of a case. He argued that the High Court did not rule on preliminary objections before ruling on the motion to set aside prior orders. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by not addressing the preliminary objections, constituting a wrongful assumption of jurisdiction and a breach of natural justice. The Supreme Court underscored the importance of ruling on legal objections and granted the certiorari.
AKAMBA, JSC:
The Applicant herein, Frederick Salim Hanawi, in a notice of motion filed on 2nd August 2013 invokes this court’s supervisory jurisdiction under article 132 of the Constitution 1992 and rules 61 and 62 of CI 16 as amended, for an order of certiorari directed at the High Court, Accra: coram George Atto Mills Graves, J to bring into this court, the entire proceedings including the ruling of the said court dated the 3rd of May 2013, in the suit numbered FAL 202/11 entitled, Dominic Edward Owusu and Esther Adubea Owusu (Plaintiffs) v Salim Ali and Esther Ali (Defendants), for same to be quashed.
Grounds for Application
The applicant stated three grounds. The first is that the learned High Court judge wrongly assumed jurisdiction to give a ruling on an application to set aside the order dated 14th January 2013 which was not argued before him in the suit No FAL 202/11 (supra). The second ground alleges an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The third and last ground is an allegation of a breach of the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice.
Brief Facts
On 14th January 2013 when the suit No FAL 202/11 (supra) involving the parties in this application was called for hearing of the case to begin, the plaintiffs/Interested parties herein (simply Interested parties) were absent from court. Prior to this date, the case was originally slated for the 8th January 2013 for hearing but it failed to come on and was adjourned to 14th January 2013 for the hearing. From the trial judge’s ruling, it is apparent that the 1st Defendant /Applicant (simply Applicant) served the Interested Parties’ solicitor with the hearing notice of the new hearing date.
When the case was called at 9.30 a.m. on the 14th January 2013 and the Interested Parties were absent, the court granted an application by counsel for the 1st Defendant/Applicant relying on order 36 rule 1 (2) (b) of CI 47 and accordingly dismissed the interested parties claim/action. The matter was then adjourned to the 21st January 2013 for the applicants (defendants) to prove their counterclaim.
On 25th March 2013 the Interested parties brought an application to set aside the High Court’s orders made on 14th January 2013. No affidavit was filed in opposition to the application to set aside the aforesaid orders. However, counsel for the Applicant raised a preliminary legal objection to the propriety of the application to set aside under order 81 rule 2 of CI 47. Counsel contended that the sa