REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT JUDGE, BOLGATANGA; EX PARTE ASANGALISA AND OTHERS [1999]DLSC461

Date	1999-06-02
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1999]DLSC461

EDWARD WIREDU JSC

AMPIAH JSC

KPEGAH JSC

ADJABENG JSC

AKUFFO JSC

E ANSAH-OBIRI FOR THE RESPONDENT INTERESTED PARTY

NO REPRESENTATION BY OR FOR THE APPLICANT.

[1999]DLSC461
																																						<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">REPUBLIC<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">HIGH COURT JUDGE, BOLGATANGA; EX PARTE ASANGALISA AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000] 1 GLR 467<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">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>E ANSAH-OBIRI FOR THE RESPONDENT INTERESTED PARTY<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">

NO REPRESENTATION BY OR FOR
THE APPLICANT. <o:p></o:p>

EDWARD WIREDU, AMPIAH, KPEGAH,
ADJABENG AND AKUFFO JSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF AKUFFO JSC<o:p></o:p>Akuffo JSC delivered the ruling of the court. This is a motion by
the applicant praying for an order of certiorari to quash the ruling delivered
on 6 June 1997 by the judge of the High Court, Bolgatanga in originating
summons No 1/1996. In his statement of case in opposition to the application
herein, counsel for the interested party has raised a preliminary point of law
challenging the competency of the motion. The basis for the preliminary point
is simple, though fundamental, and it is that the application is out of time
and, there- fore, not in compliance with rule 62 of the Supreme Court Rules,
1996 (CI 16). Consequently, it is necessary for us to deal first with this
preliminary point of law, since, in the event it is valid, there will be no
need for us to embark upon the merits of the application itself.<o:p></o:p>According to the said statement of case, the application is out of
time because, although the decision sought to be quashed was delivered on 6
June 1997, the motion herein was filed on 14 November 1997. These dates are
borne out by the record.<o:p></o:p>Rules 61 to 66 of CI 16 govern the procedure for invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction of this court. Rule 62 of CI 16 is quite clear and it
succinctly sets out, as follows, the time limits within which applications
invoking the jurisdiction may be brought:<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">“62. An application to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the
Court shall be filed within three months of the date of the decision against
which the jurisdiction is invoked unless the time is extended by the Court.”<o:p></o:p>Additionally, rule 66 of CI 16 further clarifies the matter of
time limits in the following manner:<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 name="_gjdgxs"></a>“66. An application for the
extension of time within which to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the
Court under rule 62 shall not be made after the expiration of the three months
period within which an application seeking to invoke the supervisory
jurisdiction may be filed..”<o:p></o:p>The combined effect of these provisions is so clear as to require
no lengthy expatiation. Suffice it to say that, by these provisions, a party
seeking to invoke our supervisory jurisdiction must file his application within
the stipulated time, unless we have specifically extended that time for him, which
extension must have been obtained within the same three months period. Thus our
discretion to adjust the time frame is tightly limited to extensions for which
application is made within time. For the purposes of invoking our supervisory
jurisdiction, time is clearly, a crucial factor, with which an applicant cannot
be, and is not, permitted by the rules to play around as he pleases. Therefore,
any application for our supervisory jurisdiction, which is filed after the
stipulated three months would not be an application properly before us. An
application, which is not properly before us, is for all legal intents and
purposes non-existent and we would have no jurisdiction to consider it.<o:p></o:p>The instant application ought to have been filed on or before 6
September 1997. Otherwise, before 6 September 1997, the applicant ought to have
obtained from us an extension of the time within which to file the application.
Thus, there is no doubt that the application before us is woefully and
incurably incompetent and we have absolutely no jurisdiction to hear it. For
that reason, it must be struck out.<o:p></o:p>

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