REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EX PARTE QUARCOO [1991]DLSC2305

Date	1991-11-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1991]DLSC2305

ARCHER C.J. JSC

FRANCOIS JSC

AMUA-SEKYI JSC

OSEI-HWERE JSC

EDWARD WIREDU JJ.S.C.

OKYERE FOR THE APPLICANT.

ROLAND AGODZO FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

[1991]DLSC2305
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>HIGH
COURT, ACCRA; EX PARTE QUARCOO<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1991] 2
GLR 462<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: 25 NOVEMBER 1991<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>OKYERE
FOR THE APPLICANT.<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">

ROLAND
AGODZO FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

ARCHER
C.J. FRANCOIS, AMUA-SEKYI, OSEI-HWERE AND EDWARD WIREDU JJ.S.C. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT
OF AMUA-SEKYI J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Amua-Sekyi
J.S.C. delivered the ruling of the court. On 29 October 1991 we heard arguments
and reserved our ruling for today. We have, however, decided not to give the
ruling this morning but instead, to call upon the applicant to discontinue one
or the other of the two proceedings which he is pursuing simultaneously in the
courts.<o:p></o:p>It is
unacceptable that this application for an order of certiorari to quash a ruling
of the High Court should be pursued alongside a substantive suit in the High
Court in respect of the same matter. Here, as well as there, his contention is
that the ruling of which he complains is null and void, or otherwise irregular.
We think that this is to impose an unnecessary burden on the respondent who may
have to defend the judgment twice when a decision by this court or the High
Court in the respective suits before them ought to conclude the matter one way
or the other.<o:p></o:p>Order 59,
r. 3 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A) enjoins judges
of the High Court not to grant leave to apply for an order of certiorari before
the time limited for an appeal has expired, or the appeal has been determined.
In this way, conflicting decisions are avoided, and finality of judgments assured.
In this court, we have time and again refused to entertain applications for
orders of certiorari whenever it has come to our notice that the applicant is
also seeking relief in another court.<o:p></o:p>Paragraph
6 of the Practice Direction (Practice and Procedure of the Supreme Court)
[1981] G.L.R. 1, S.C. issued on 15 June 1981 as Judicial Circular No. 146/12
reads:<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">“6. It is
also to be noted that where a cause or matter can be determined by a superior
court, other than the Supreme Court, the jurisdiction of the lower court shall
first be invoked. The Supreme Court may dismiss any such cause or matter, with
punitive costs to be paid personally by counsel or by the party responsible for
bringing such cause or matter to the Supreme Court in the first instance.”<o:p></o:p>In line
with this, we order that the applicant do within four days from today file a
notice discontinuing the proceedings in this court or the High Court, failing
which we shall proceed to dismiss the application and impose the sanctions
indicated in paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction (supra). The reserved ruling
is adjourned to 9 December 1991.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>