PRACTICE NOTE: REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, HO; EX PARTE EVANGELICAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, GHANA (E P CHURCH) AND OTHERS [1991]DLSC2289

PRACTICE NOTE: REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, HO; EX PARTE EVANGELICAL PRESBYTERIAN CH... [1991]DLSC2289

Date	1991-01-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1991]DLSC2289

ADADE AG CJ JSC

FRANCOIS JSC

AMUA-SEKYI JSC

OSEI-HWERE JSC

AIKINS JJSC

[1991]DLSC2289
																																						<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" >PRACTICE
NOTE: REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>HIGH
COURT, HO; EX PARTE EVANGELICAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, GHANA (E P CHURCH) AND
OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1991] 1
GLR 39<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 29 JANUARY 1991<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<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">

<o:p>&nbsp;</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 1.0pt 0in">

ADADE AG
CJ, FRANCOIS, AMUA-SEKYI, OSEI-HWERE AND AIKINS JJSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT
OF ADADE AG. C.<o:p></o:p>Adade Ag
CJ delivered the judgment of the court. On 4 November 1990 the applicants,
Evangelical Presbyterian Church and the Right Reverend Professor N K Dzobo
(Moderator), filed an application asking this court, in the exercise of its
supervisory jurisdiction, to bring up and quash the ruling of the High Court,
Ho, dated 18 October 1990, in trans suit No 1/89, by which the said High Court
restrained the applicants (ie, the defendants in this suit) temporarily and
pending the hearing and final determination of the said transferred suit, from:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
“Ex-communicating
the plaintiffs herein from the first defendant church. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Banning
the bible study and prayer fellowship of the various branches of the first
defendant church of which the plaintiffs are members from operating. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(iii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Transferring,
suspending or dismissing pastors of the fist defendant church, especially those
who have thrown their weight behind the plaintiffs herein.”<o:p></o:p>The
motion was accompanied by, as usual, an affidavit in support of the application
and a statement setting out, inter alia, the grounds upon which the relief is
being sought. The affidavit had attached to it a number of exhibits. The
motion, together with all the attachments, was served on the
plaintiff-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) on 14 and 16
November 1990.<o:p></o:p>On 9
January 1991 the respondents filed an affidavit in opposition to the
application. Then on 11 January 1991 they filed a notice of a preliminary
objection, to the effect that the application is incompetent and cannot be
entertained by the court. The notice of objection was placed under rule 7(1) of
the Supreme Court Rules, 1970 (CI 13). No indication had been given in the
affidavit of 9 January 1991 that such a preliminary objection was contemplated.<o:p></o:p>The
substance of the objection is that having filed the motion on 14 November 1990
the applicants were under obligation to file a statement of their case within
21 days, or else their application must be deemed to have been struck out on
the expiry of the said 21 days. They support this position by reference to
Republic v Court of Appeal; Ex parte Adu Gyamfi Supreme Court, 21 July 1981,
unreported and Republic v Court of Appeal; Ex parte Aduhene, Supreme Court, 21
July 1981, unreported. They also refer to Republic v Darkwa [1982-83] GLR 129,
SC and Pomaa v Fosuhene, Supreme Court, 17 June 1987; digested in [1987-88]
GLRD 27. The last two cases are not particularly relevant.<o:p></o:p>Adu
Gyamfi (supra) and Aduhene (supra) were applications for certiorari. In both,
the applicants had applied for leave to apply for certiorari. The court took
the view that in the Supreme Court there is no need to ask for leave before the
substantive application is brought. The leave stage can be eliminated.
Accordingly, the court directed that an application invoking the supervisory
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court should come directly, on notice to the respondents.
But the court did not stop there; it asked that after a respondent has reacted,
the application should follow the course set out in CI 13 for substantive
appeals. To appreciate the arguments of Mr Kuenyehia, for the respondents, it
is necessary to reproduce the ruling in Ex parte A</main>