SWANIKER vs. ADOTEI TWI II [1966]DLSC1763

Date	1966-02-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLSC1763

SARKODEE-ADOO C.J.

OLLENNU JSC

APALOO J.S.C.

B. J. DA ROCHA FOR THE APPLICANT.

J. B. QUASHIE-IDUN FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1966]DLSC1763
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >SWANIKER <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ADOTEI TWI II <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 151<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
14 FEBRUARY
1966.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

B. J. DA ROCHA FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

J. B. QUASHIE-IDUN FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

SARKODEE-ADOO C.J., OLLENNU AND APALOO JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SARKODEE-ADOO C.J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an application under rule 33 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1962,1 for a review of
a judgment of this court delivered on 30 June 1964 (unreported). Rule 33
provides as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“The
Court shall not review any judgment once given and delivered by it save where
it is satisfied that the circumstances of the case are exceptional and that in
the interest of justice there should be a review.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before
proceeding to deal with the merits of the application, it is pertinent to point
out that the power to review was only recently conferred upon this court, and
to the best of my recollection, there has been before this court only one
application in the case of Adusei v. Marfo2 and I reproduce the ruling
hereunder:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“RULING:
The record of the proceedings and the argument by counsel for the parties leave
no doubt in our minds that this is a proper case for a review in compliance
with the specific provision as contained in rule 33 of the Rules of the Supreme
Court, 1962. The judgment of this court dated 4 March 1963, is in our view
given per incuriam occasioned by incorrect court notes from the court below
quite apart from incoherent passages in the plaintiff’s evidence in which there
are also obvious omissions. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that there are
special circumstances and in the interest of justice the said judgment should
be vacated and it is hereby vacated and the appeal will be relisted and heard
de novo by this court as constituted. The application is accordingly granted,
and the applicant will have his costs of this motion fixed at £G6 3s. The
applicant and the respondent to contact the registrar for a hearing date.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
ruling was given in court upon the conclusion of arguments by counsel as it was
clear to the court that no further consideration was necessary to arrive at a
decision. The court was satisfied from its judgment that it was influenced by
some typographical errors in the record and consequently it omitted to consider
certain issues in the appeal, and accordingly the application for review was
granted, the judgment was vacated and the appeal was relisted and heard de novo
by the court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
existing rulings on review by the other courts, although not binding on this
court, in my opinion, do not provide adequate or safe guidance as to the principles
to be followed for the simple reason that the powers of review by those courts
are dependent upon clearly different grounds and considerations in that in
those instances the discretionary power of review was exercised upon sufficient
grounds shown.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
instant application, omitting the formal parts, the material paragraphs of the
applicant’s affidavit in support of the motion for review are as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“(3) That
the whole action in the trial court turned on whether the plaintiff-applicant’s
family or my family owned the land in dispute.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">&nbsp;(4) That it was not disputed that the Korle
priest was the original grantor of the land. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-</main>