KOGLEX LIMITED vs. MRS. KATE FIELD [2000]DLSC2351

Date	2000-02-16
Suit No.	Civil Motion No. 47/98
Citation No.	[2000]DLSC2351

ABBAN C.J. PRESIDING

AMPIAH J.S.C

ADJABENG J.S.C

ACQUAH J.S.C

ATUGUBA J.S.C

MS. AKUFFO J.S.C

SARPONG J.S.C.

MR. AYI KOI OTOO FOR THE APPLICANT

MR. RAY KAKRABA QUARSHIE FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2000]DLSC2351
																																						<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" >KOGLEX LIMITED<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MRS. KATE FIELD<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT]<o:p></o:p>Civil
Motion No. 47/98<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">

DATE:
16th February, 2000.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>MR.
AYI KOI OTOO 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">

MR.
RAY KAKRABA QUARSHIE FOR THE RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

ABBAN
C.J.&nbsp; PRESIDING, AMPIAH J.S.C., ADJABENG
J.S.C., ACQUAH, J.S.C., ATUGUBA J.S.C., MS. AKUFFO, J.S.C., SARPONG J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div>RULING<o:p></o:p>ACQUAH, J.S.C.:<o:p></o:p>This is an application for a review of the judgment
of the ordinary bench of this court delivered on 20th April 1998. The judgment
was by a majority of 3:2 — Adjabeng, Atuguba and Sophia Akuffo JJ.S.C, and
Hayfron-Benjamin and Ampiah, JJ.S.C. dissenting.<o:p></o:p>Under rule 54 of the Supreme Court Rules 1996
(C.I.16) as amended, grounds entitling one to invoke our review jurisdiction
are stated as follows:<o:p></o:p>“(a) exceptional circumstances which have resulted
in a miscarriage of justice;<o:p></o:p>(b) discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the
applicants knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the
decision was given”.<o:p></o:p>The applicant herein anchors his request under the
first limb of the above rule and therefore concludes in paragraph 28 of his
statement of case filed on the 18th of June 1998 in the following words:<o:p></o:p>“28. It
is submitted that all the points raised do demonstrate exceptional
circumstances which have resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice and
therefore a case for review has indeed been made out.”<o:p></o:p>The burden of an applicant who relies on
exceptional circumstances is set out in Quartey vrs. Central Services Co. Ltd.
(1996-97) SCGLR 398 at 399 wherein Abban C.J. delivering the opinion of the
Court, explained that<o:p></o:p>“... such
an applicant should satisfy the court that there has been some fundamental or
basic error which was inadvertently committed in the course of considering its
judgment; and which fundamental error has hereby resulted in a gross
miscarriage of justice.”<o:p></o:p>Adade JSC made the same point in Mechanical Lloyd
Assembly Plant vrs. Nartey (1987-88) 2 GLR 598 at 603 - 4 thus:<o:p></o:p>"The
review jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction ... to be prayed in aid in the
exceptional situation where a fundamental and basic error may have inadequately
been committed by the court, which error must have occasioned a gross
miscarriage of justice”.