THE REPUBLIC v. THE REGISTRAR, CIRCUIT COURT, AGONA SWEDREU, EX PARTE: MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA & ORS
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- DENNIS ADJEI, J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Administrative Law
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
On appeal from the High Court Cape Coast, the Court of Appeal, per Dennis D. Adjei, JA, addressed judicial review, case management discretion, and land jurisdiction. Trustees of the Unification Church sued in the Agona Swedru Circuit Court over title to land at West Kasoa while a parallel High Court action was pending. Mohammed Mustapha moved to decline jurisdiction; when his counsel sought adjournment and did not attend, the Circuit Court struck out the motion for want of prosecution and granted interlocutory injunction. The High Court quashed both orders, citing denial of hearing. The Court of Appeal held the Circuit Court acted within its discretion to strike out the motion, reversed the High Court on that point, but found error in immediately granting an injunction without hearing Mustapha, affirming the High Court’s quash of the injunction. The court clarified that multiplicity requires election and stay, not jurisdictional ouster, and reiterated the grounds on which certiorari lies.
DENNIS ADJEI, J.A.
This is an appeal against the judgment by the High Court Cape Coast which was delivered on 11th January, 2010. In the said judgment the High Court Cape Coast quashed the ruling of the Circuit Court delivered on 9th February, 2009 on the ground that the Applicant/Respondent herein was denied a hearing by the said Circuit Court. The interested party appellant being aggrieved by the decision of the High Court appealed to this court on 22nd January, 2010 praying for an order to set aside the said judgment of the High Court.
The grounds of appeal as contained in the Amended Notice of Appeal are as follows:
“a. The judgment is against the weight of the evidence adduced before the learned trial Judge during the hearing of the application for judicial review.
b. the learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the striking out of the Applicant/Respondent’s Motion on Notice to strike out the entire action for want of jurisdiction at the Swedru Circuit Court on a date which was fixed at the instance of the Applicant/Respondent amounted to breach of the rules of natural justice and hence the entire action of the Swedru Circuit Court could be quashed by Certiorari.
c. The learned trial Judge erred in law when he with all due respect to him overlooked that it was entirely within the jurisdiction of the trial Circuit Judge to strike out an Applicant’s Motion if the applicant fails to turn up in Court on the due date and fails to give any sufficient or satisfactory reason for his absence on that date.
d. the learned trial Judge erred in law when he quashed the Orders of the Agona Swedru Circuit court dated 9th February, 2009 and further went ahead to quash the subsequent proceedings based on the said orders.
e. the learned trial judge erred in law when in exercising his powers of Judicial review he made further orders quashing the entire proceedings based on the orders of the Agona Swedru Circuit Court dated 9th February 2009 when indeed the applicant had not sought such a relief from the Court.
f. the decision of the learned trial Judge quashing by implication “any subsequent proceedings” based on the Orders of the Agona Swedru Circuit Court dated 9th February, 2009 was bad in law.
g. Additional grounds of Appeal to be filed upon receipt of the entire record of proceedings”.
The brief facts of this appeal are that the interested parties/Appellants herein (who would be referred to in this appeal ‘as Appellants’ filed an action against t