MECHANICAL LLOYD ASSEMBLY PLANT LTD vs. NARTEY [1988]DLSC784

Date	1988-07-19
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1988]DLSC784

ADADE JSC

TAYLOR JSC

FRANCOIS JSC

WUAKU JSC

AMUA-SEKYI J.S.C.

NII ODOI ANNAN (WITH HIM JOE REINDORF ZWENNES KOFI ACQUAH AND MIGUEL RIBEIRO) FOR THE APPLICANTS.

KWAME TETTEH FOR THE RESPONDENT

[1988]DLSC784
																																						<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" >MECHANICAL LLOYD ASSEMBLY PLANT LTD <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>NARTEY <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA.]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] 2 GLR 598<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
19 JULY, 1988<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">

NII ODOI ANNAN (WITH HIM JOE REINDORF, ZWENNES,
KOFI ACQUAH AND MIGUEL RIBEIRO) FOR THE APPLICANTS. <o:p></o:p>

KWAME TETTEH 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">

ADADE, TAYLOR, FRANCOIS, WUAKU AND
AMUA-SEKYI JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ADADE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>This is
an application by the defendants herein, Mechanical Lloyd Assembly Plant Ltd.,
asking this court to review its decision given on 19 May 1988 (see [1987-88] 2 G.L.R.
314, S.C.). In that decision the court gave judgment for the plaintiff
(Francois and Amua Sekyi JJ.S.C. dissenting) for:<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">(a) a declaration of title to a
piece of land at Frafraha;<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">(b) Recovery of possession of the
said 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-shadow:yes">(c) An injunction to restrain the
defendants, e.t.c. from interfering with the land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The court
also awarded the plaintiff ¢200,000 damages, and gave him ¢50,000 costs in this
court, and ¢25,000 each in the Court of Appeal and the High Court.<o:p></o:p>The
defendants say that the judgment is wrong; it should be reviewed and reversed
in their favour. As soon as arguments closed on 29 June 1988, I had no doubt in
my own mind that this application must fail. I could immediately have
pronounced my decision there and then, at best reserving my reasons. The more I
listened to Mr. Joe Reindorf, counsel for the defendants-applicants, the more
convinced I became that he was not arguing an application for a review; he was
merely re-arguing the appeal which had been disposed of, trying to put the best
face possible on a rather hopeless case.<o:p></o:p>Let me
say at once that, for all I know, virtually every judgment on this earth,
arrived at as a result of evidence gathered from several sources, can be
criticised. A Privy Council judgment put in the hands of any lawyer, along with
the evidence grounding it, can be criticised in the same way as a High Court
judgment can be. A person who has lost a case will almost instinctively feel
that the judgment must be wrong. And why not? If he had won, the decision would
be right; so if he lost, how could the court be right? But the mere fact that a
judgment can be criticised is no ground for asking that it should be reviewed.
The review jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction to be exercised in
exceptional circumstances. It is not an appellate jurisdiction. It is a kind of
jurisdiction held in reserve, to be prayed in aid in the exceptional situation
where a fundamental and basic error may have inadvertently been committed by
the court, which error must have occasioned a gross miscarriage of justice. The
review jurisdiction is not intended as a try-on by a party after losing an
appeal; nor is it an automatic next step from an appeal; neither is it meant to
be resorted to as an emotional reaction to an unfavourable judgment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 19 May
1988 we gave judgment in the above appeal and made a number of consequential
orders, already referred to. Immediately after the orders had been pronounced,
and even before the record book could be signed by their lordships, Mr. C. C.
B. K. Zwennes, junior counsel for the defendants, was on his feet, applying
orally for: (a) a stay of execution of our judgment; and (b) leave to apply for
a review of the said judgment. In addition, Mr. Zwennes observed that of the
four opinions read (my brother Francois J.S.C. did not read an opinion then),
only the president of the court commented on the applicability of the Land
Development (Protection of Purchasers) Act, 1960 (Act 2). He would therefore
ask that the other three justices do make their views on Act 2 known in
writing, as an “addendum” to their opinion. Mr. Zwennes justified the course he
had taken on the grounds that as the court had then not risen, he was entitled
to make any application he thought fit touching the appeal then in hand. He was
allowed to argue the applications. Mrs. Quartey, standing in for Mr. Tetteh,
resisted the applications. The applications were then adjourned to 24 May 1988
for ruling.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>