[2022]DLSC11673 • April 27, 2022 • Supreme Court •
THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT (CRIMINAL COURT ‘1’), ACCRA, EX-PARTE: KWASI AFRIFA ESQ., DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL
The Applicant, a legal practitioner, was charged with professional misconduct by the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council (Respondent) based on a complaint. The Applicant sought judicial review in the High Court to quash the Disciplinary Committee's proceedings and prohibit further hearings, alleging procedural impropriety and illegality. The High Court refused the application. The Applicant then sought supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to quash the High Court ruling and prohibit the Disciplinary Committee from proceeding with the charges, contending the charges were unconstitutional and based on repealed legislation.
read moreAMADU JSC:- INTRODUCTION: (1) It is provided under Rule 54 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I.16) as follows:- “54 Grounds for Review The court may review a decision made or given by it on the ground of: (a) exceptional circumstances which have resulted in a miscarriage of justice; or (b) the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the Applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced by the Applicant at the time when the decision was given”. (2) The scope of the application of the review jurisdiction has been pronounced upon by this court in a number of cases as for example in MECHANICAL LLOYD ASSEMBLY PLANT LTD. VS. NARTEY [1987-1988] 2 GLR398, this court per Adade JSC held inter alia that:“The review jurisdiction is not intended as a try on by a party after losing an appeal nor is it meant to be resorted to as an emotional reaction to an unfavourable judgment”. Then in QUARTEY VS. CENTRAL SERV...