AGYEI AND ANOTHER vs FORI AND OTHERS [2000]DLSC106

Date	2000-10-18
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2000]DLSC106

EDWARD WIREDU JSC

BAMFORD-ADDO JSC

AMPIAH JSC

ADJABENG JSC

ACQUAH JSC

ATUGUBA JSC

AKUFFO JSC

WA M ADUMUAH-BOSSMAN FOR THE APPLICANTS.

KWAKU GYAN FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[2000]DLSC106
																																						<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">AGYEI AND ANOTHER<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">FORI AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000]
2 GLR 426<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">Date:
18 OCTOBER 2000<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:WA M ADUMUAH-BOSSMAN FOR
THE APPLICANTS.KWAKU GYAN FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.__________________________________________________________________CORAM:EDWARD WIREDU,
BAMFORD-ADDO, AMPIAH, ADJABENG, ACQUAH, ATUGUBA AND AKUFFO JJSC__________________________________________________________________JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Edward Wiredu JSC. <o:p></o:p>The
review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has been conferred by article 133(1)
of the Constitution, 1992 which reads as follows: “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.) Pursuant to
this provision, rule 54 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 (CI 16) was enacted to
regulate the grounds and conditions under which this power may be invoked.
Consequently, this rule provides as follows:<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">“54.
The Court may review any decision made or given by it on any of the following
grounds—<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)
exceptional circumstances which have resulted in miscarriage of justice; <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)
discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of
due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be
produced by him at the time when the decision was given.”<o:p></o:p>(The
emphasis is mine.) Clearly, the jurisdiction is restricted to the review of
decisions “made or given by it”; “it” being with reference to the Supreme
Court. Thus, in an application for review, the only decision under scrutiny
must be the decision of the Supreme Court, not the decisions of any prior trial
or appellate court or tribunal before whom the case had previously appeared. It
is for this reason that, time and again, this court has reiterated that its
review jurisdiction is not an appellate one and, therefore, an application for
review may not be used as an occasion to repeat an appeal or as a try-on by a
party after losing an appeal.<o:p></o:p>Furthermore,
when exercising its review jurisdiction, it is not the function of the court to
second-guess the ordinary bench or to substitute its decision for that of the
ordinary bench, as though the matter before it is yet another appeal. In an
application for review, the court’s power and sole function, particularly where
the application is founded on the first ground stipulated by rule 54, is to
analyse the decision and the reasoning that led thereto, entirely for the
purpose of ascertaining whether or not, indeed, there are demonstrably
exceptional circumstances which may, indeed, be said to have resulted in a
miscarriage of justice. It, therefore, follows that in the performance of this
function, it would be highly improper for the court to review the evidence in
the case that had been lodged before the ordinary bench, as though to test
whether or not the decision is in tune with the evidence. To do so would amount
to the review court treating the application before it as if it were an appeal
and, thus, usurping a jurisdiction it does not have.<o:p></o:p>