July 5, 2023
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
PWAMANG JSC:-
My Lords, this appeal emanates from an application for Judicial Review filed in the High Court, Koforidua on 1st October, 2015 by the applicant/respondent/appellant (the applicant) against the New Juaben District Assembly. However, the applicant added the Trustees of the International Central Gospel Church of Koforidua as 2nd respondent. It is a highly unusual practice in our jurisdiction to make a private legal entity a respondent to an application for Judicial Review of an administrative action which action was not taken by that private legal entity. Where any person stands to be affected by the outcome of an application for Judicial Review, either of an administrative action or of a decision of a lower court or adjudicatory body, that party is stated in the originating motion as an interested party, which is the term used in Order 55 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I.47) that deals with applications for Judicial Review. We shall address that matter in more detail in fra, but for the consistency of the proceedings in this appeal, we shall in this judgment refer to the interested party as 2nd respondent.
The facts of the case are that, by a building permit dated 15th May, 2015 the 1st respondent granted authorisation to the 2nd respondent/appellant/respondent (2nd respondent) to build a church on a plot of land it acquired at Koforidua in an area originally zoned for residential development. Adjoining the plot was an existing church of the applicant built some years back, called Saint Bakhita Roman Catholic Church, from which they had been worshipping. The applicant states that it came to their knowledge that in order to grant the building permit to the 2nd respondent to build its church, the 1st respondent re-zoned the planned use of the plot in question from residential to church, but that the 1st respondent ought to have given them prior notice to enable them raise any objection to the re-zoning which was not done.
The applicant also gives several reasons that make it unreasonable for the 1st respondent to have permitted the building of a church on the land. They say that the size of the land is too small for a church building with parking space for the cars of members who attend service there. The result would be that when people attend service they would park cars on the solders of the access road which also connects to the hospital and ought to be kept free always for use by speeding ambulances. The applicant also
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court, per Pwamang JSC, reviewed an appeal arising from a judicial review challenge to land-use re-zoning and a building permit granted by the New Juaben District Assembly to the International Central Gospel Church (ICGC) for a church next to Saint Bakhita Roman Catholic Church in Koforidua. The Court emphasized that private entities affected by administrative decisions should be joined as interested parties, not respondents, and that reliefs like injunction and prohibition against ICGC were misconceived. While finding that the Assembly failed to notify adjoining occupiers as required by CAP 84 and Act 925, the Court held that mandamus was unavailable due to missing statutory duty and demand/refusal, and that certiorari—though available—was discretionary and refused because the building was already completed and the applicant delayed. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal, leaving the CA decision intact.