2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal of Ghana (Bernasko Essah, J.A.; with Ofoe, J.A. (Presiding) and Bartels‑Kodwo, J.A.) reviewed an appeal from a High Court ruling refusing to extend time for judicial review (certiorari) of a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Bawku Traditional Council concerning Denugu lands. The impugned declaration recognized Tont Clan members as aboriginal inhabitants and allodial owners. After a preliminary objection that the six‑month judicial review window had lapsed, the High Court refused extension and awarded GH¢5,000 costs, viewing the dispute as chieftaincy‑related and finding no breach of natural justice. On appeal, the Court agreed with the refusal but on different grounds: Order 55 rule 3 of C.I. 47 is mandatory and, guided by Wassa Fiase Traditional Council v. Nyamekye, extensions beyond six months require special circumstances such as lack of notice. The Appellant’s reasons—attempts to engage the Bawku‑Naba and a mistaken belief that a separate appeal covered the land issue—did not qualify. The appeal was dismissed.
S. R. BERNASKO ESSAH (MRS.), J.A.
This is an appeal by the Applicant/Appellant against the ruling of the High Court, dated 2nd March 2021, which was in favour of the interested party.
By way of brief antecedent, the applicants filed a motion on notice for extension of time to apply for Judicial Review in the nature of certiorari in respect of a decision of the Bawku traditional council. He brought the application under Order 80 rule 4(1) & (2) of CI47. 2004.
The portion of the decision he sought to be impugned was an alleged declaration that the Tont Clan members were the aboriginal inhabitants of Denugu and therefore allodial owners of Denugu lands.
On the return date, for the hearing of the motion, Counsel for the interested party raised a preliminary objection to the competence of the motion submitting that the period of six months within which an application for Judicial review, having lapsed, the court had no jurisdiction to extend time for the Applicant to apply for judicial review. Counsel for the applicant, opposed the objection. The court therefore, ordered the parties to file authorities in respect of their positions.
In its ruling, the trial court on page 106 of the ROA set down the factors a court has to consider in an application for extension of time. These he said were (i) the period of delay (ii) the extent to which the applicant has personal responsibility for the delay (iii) the prima facie strength of the application. (iv) the requirements of justice.
The court then determined whether the application for certiorari had any real prospects of success if even the application for extension of
time were granted. This he did by considering the role of a Judicial Review Court, when it is considering an application for judicial review.
He identified, the issue at the time of the petition before the traditional council as being a determination of who a chief or traditional ruler of Denegu is, and said it was a chieftaincy issue. As such, he had no jurisdiction, over same. Further that the land issue was merely incidental to the proceedings cannot be a ground to impugn the decision of the judicial committee. He also ruled that on the face of the record the traditional council did not disregard any rules of natural justice, and acted within its jurisdiction.
He concluded that there was no need for any application to extend time. The application was therefore adjudged to be unwarranted and refused. Costs of GH5,000 was awarded against the a