KONADU AND OTHERS vs. YIADOM AND OTHERS [1995]DLSC578

Date	1995-10-31
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1995]DLSC578

AMUA-SEKYI JSC

AIKINS JSC

CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC

AMPIAH JSC

ADJABENG JSC

J K AGYEMAN FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPLICANTS.

OBENG-MANU FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTS.

[1995]DLSC578
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">KONADU AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">YIADOM AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1995-96] 1 GLR 8<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: 31
OCTOBER 1995<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>J K AGYEMAN FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPLICANTS.<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">

OBENG-MANU FOR THE
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTS. <o:p></o:p>

AMUA-SEKYI, AIKINS, CHARLES
HAYFRON-BENJAMIN, AMPIAH AND ADJABENG JJSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF ADJABENG JSC.<o:p></o:p>The applicants were the defendants in a chieftaincy matter brought
against them in the Kumasi Traditional Council. The plaintiff-respondents
(hereinafter referred to as the respondents) sought a declaration that the
purported nomination of the fourth defendant- applicant was null and void as he
was not a royal of the Pankrono stool. Judgment was given in favour of the
respondents. The applicants appealed to the Ashanti Regional House of Chiefs
which affirmed the decision of the Kumasi Traditional Council. Not satisfied,
the applicants again appealed to the National House of Chiefs, and this time
they won. The respondents, with the leave of the judicial committee of the
National House of Chiefs, appealed to this court against the decision of the
National House of Chiefs.<o:p></o:p>This court on 28 July 1993, by a majority decision of three to two
allowed the respondents’ appeal. On 11 August 1993 the applicants filed an
application for the review of this decision. This application was not heard
until 18 October 1994. A ruling was then given on 25 October 1994, dismissing
the application for review.<o:p></o:p>The applicants are, in the present application, invoking the
inherent jurisdiction of this court to set aside the ruling given in the
application for review. They do this on two grounds. First, they contend that
Mr Justice Francois who sat on the application was not competent to sit thereon
as he had then retired as a justice of the Supreme Court. They also contend
that the application was not a part-heard matter so as to bring it within the
scope of article 145(4) of the Constitution, 1992. The court was in the
circumstances improperly constituted, and so its proceedings on 18 October
1994, and the ruling on 25 October 1994, when Mr Justice Francois sat, were all
null and void and must be set aside. Secondly, the applicants contend that the
Rules of Court Committee not having prescribed the grounds and conditions for
review as required under article 133(1) of the Constitution, 1992, it was wrong
for the Supreme Court to proceed to hear the application for review.<o:p></o:p>In arguing the application, counsel for the applicants submitted
that a review is a fresh matter, and cited in support the decision of this
court in the case of Republic v National Public Tribunal; Ex parte Office of
the Special Public Prosecutor [1993-94] 1 GLR 478, SC. Counsel referred
particularly to the opinion of Mr Justice Francois in which the learned judge
said at 494 that “. . . review, starts a new cycle.”<o:p></o:p>As regards the second ground of the application, counsel submitted
that the practice direction on review has been superseded by the Constitution,
1992. He relies also on the opinion of my brother, Hayfron-Benjamin JSC in the
case of Afranie II v Quarcoo [1992] 2 GLR 561, SC in which my learned brother
expressed the opinion that practice directions have no statutory force. It must
be pointed out that the learned judge, however, said therein that these
directions are guides. At 623 of the report he said:<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">“Thus while I still hold that these practice directions have no
statutory force I will maintain that they remain guides to the courts and the
legal profession on matters of practice and procedure.”<o:p></o:p>(The emphasis is mine.)<o:p></o:p>It seems to me that this second ground canvassed by the
applicants’ counsel cannot avail him in this application. It was pointed out by
counsel for the respondents that article 133(1) of the Constitution, 1992 on
which the applicants’ counsel relies does not make it mandatory that the rules
of court should prescribe any conditions. Article 133(1) of the Constitution,
1992 reads: “ 133.(1) The Supreme Court may review any decision made or given
by it on such grounds and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by
rules of court.” (The emphasis is mine.) Again, it was submitted by the
respondents’ counsel that the existing practice is still in force as it is
covered by decided cases on the matter which form part of the existing law: see
article 11(1) of the Constitution, 1992.<o:p></o:p>I could not agree more with the respondents’ coun</main>