ODONKOR AND OTHERS vs. AMARTEI (NO 2)

The opinion I express on this application is in two parts. First, on the merits and second, the manner in which the application has been brought. It is rare in the history of litigation in this country to find a case travelling through three hierarchies of judicial authority with all nine Superior Court judges who have dealt with it demonstrating singular unanimity in pronouncing for the same party. In an imperfect world, the possibility that all the nine eminent jurists could be wrong cannot be ruled out, even though it may appear an extremely unlikely event. Moreso when the matters challenged are matters of elementary law, not only residing comfortably in the bosom of judges, but are the outpouring of words of wisdom daily spouted from their lips. An opportunity, however, is given once more to redefine the boundaries of the review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which should be seized. One could simply reiterate definitions set out in Kumnipa v Ayirebi [1987-88] 1 GLR 265 permit...