2022
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Justice I. O. Tanko Amadu, dismissed a review application brought by a legal practitioner challenging prior refusals of certiorari and prohibition arising out of disciplinary proceedings before the General Legal Council. Reiterating that Rule 54 of the Supreme Court Rules (C.I. 16) confers a special and narrow review jurisdiction, the Court held that the Applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or a fundamental error causing miscarriage of justice. The ordinary bench had found no basis to quash the High Court’s ruling and noted that staying disciplinary proceedings lies within the High Court’s jurisdiction. On review, the Court emphasized the discretionary nature of supervisory jurisdiction, the availability of alternative remedies, and that complaints about the disciplinary charges and panel composition fall outside review. Justice Gertrude Torkornoo concurred, underscoring that mere legal evaluation errors are for appeal, not review.
AMADU JSC:-
INTRODUCTION:
(1)It is provided under Rule 54 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I.16) as follows:-
“54 Grounds for Review
The court may review a decision made or given by it on the ground of:
(a)exceptional circumstances which have resulted in a miscarriage of justice; or
(b)the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the Applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced by the Applicant at the time when the decision was given”.
(2)The scope of the application of the review jurisdiction has been pronounced upon by this court in a number of cases as for example in MECHANICAL LLOYD ASSEMBLY PLANT LTD. VS. NARTEY [1987-1988] 2 GLR398, this court per Adade JSC held inter alia that:“The review jurisdiction is not intended as a try on by a party after losing an appeal nor is it meant to be resorted to as an emotional reaction to an unfavourable judgment”. Then in QUARTEY VS. CENTRAL SERVICES CO. LTD. [1996-1997] SCGLR 398 at 399, this court expounded on its review jurisdiction in the following words:
“A review of a judgment is a special jurisdiction and not an appellate jurisdiction conferred on the court; and the court would exercise that special jurisdiction in favour of an Applicant only in exceptional circumstances. This implies that there has been some fundamental or basic error which the court inadvertently committed in the course of considering its judgment; and which fundamental error has thereby resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice”.
(3)BACKGROUND FACTS
The facts giving rise to the instant application are simple and undisputed. The Applicant/Applicant (hereinafter referred to as “Applicant”) a legal practitioner, was arraigned before the Disciplinary Committee of the Interested party/Respondent, (herein after referred to as the “Respondent”) the statutory body responsible for regulating the conduct of legal practitioners pursuant to the provisions of the Legal Provision Act 1960 (Act 32) on charges of professional misconduct based on a complaint against the Applicant.
(4)In the course of the proceedings before the Respondent’s Disciplinary Committee, the Applicant invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court for an order for judicial review in the nature of certiorari and prohibition and sought the following reliefs:-
“a) An order quashing the purported proceedings of the Disciplinary
Committee of the General Legal Council dated 15th July, 2021 and 29th