REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EX PARTE ASAKUM ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION LTD AND OTHERS

The applicants, Asakum Engineering and Construction Ltd and its two directors, were plaintiffs in a civil appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court on 17 July 1990, which ordered that the defendant's counterclaim be tried by the High Court. The defendant (second respondent) later filed a winding-up petition against the applicant company, claiming shareholder status. The High Court granted the winding-up petition and barred the applicants from acting as directors or in company management for six years. The applicants did not appeal but instead filed an application for certiorari to quash the High Court judgment and sought committal for contempt against the second respondent for failing to prosecute his counterclaim as ordered by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT OF CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC. At first blush it would appear that this application raises grave and serious issues of law. The applicants suing in aid of the exercise of this court’s supervisory power of certiorari have stated no fewer than fourteen grounds upon which they consider this court should accede to their prayers in their motion. However, upon a close reading of the grounds, it is clear that the applicants have misconceived the laws on the issues which they have so raised. This court in Darbah v Ampah, Supreme Court, Accra, 20 February 1990; unreported, in a similar case in which the applicant wanted to circumvent the appeal process by resort to an application for a prerogative writ, conceded that: “there are situations in which the court show anxiety to deal with cases by adopting methods which are faster than the usual processes of normal appeals by resorting to the remedies being sought in the present application.” This court then stated the two ...