MADAM AKUA NYAMEKYE vs. MR. ANTHONY KWAKU OPOKU [2000]DLSC2352

Date	2000-04-12
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. 45/2000
Citation No.	[2000]DLSC2352

WIREDU J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

MRS. J BAMFORD-ADDO J.S.C

AMPIAH J.S.C

KPEGAH J.S.C

ADJABENG J.S.C

ATUGUBA J.S.C

MS. AKUFFO J.S.C.

AHENKORA FOR THE APPLICANT

KUENYEHIA FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2000]DLSC2352
																																						<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" >MADAM AKUA NYAMEKYE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MR. ANTHONY KWAKU OPOKU<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT OF JUSTICE]<o:p></o:p>CIVIL MOTION
NO. 45/2000<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: 12TH APRIL,
2000.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>AHENKORA 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">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
text-align:justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">WIREDU J.S.C. (PRESIDING), MRS. J BAMFORD-ADDO J.S.C., AMPIAH J.S.C., KPEGAH J.S.C., ADJABENG
J.S.C., ATUGUBA
J.S.C., MS. AKUFFO
J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div>RULING<o:p></o:p>EDWARD WIREDU, J.S.C.:<o:p></o:p>This is an application praying this Court to review
its judgement given on July 17th, 1999 dismissing the Applicant's appeal.<o:p></o:p>When Rule 54 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I.
16) was enacted, it was the hope of all that having spelt out, in statutory
terms, the only grounds upon which the review jurisdiction of this Court may be
exercised, litigants would be duly guided thereby and the previous attempts to
use the review jurisdiction as an avenue for a rehearing of lost appeals would
cease or, at least, be significantly reduced. Unfortunately this does not
appear to be the effect. To make matters worse, it also appears that counsel
for losing parties are under the misapprehension that the 'reviewability' of a
matter is determined by numerical factors and any decision of the court which
is not unanimous must be subject to review.<o:p></o:p>Illustrative of this point is the statement in the
Applicant's Statement of Case herein that the application is for:—<o:p></o:p>"...
review of the split decision of the Supreme Court ... by a majority of 3-2 ...
(and that in this matter) Except... in the National House of Chief where the
decision was unanimous in all the other adjudicating bodies which have dealt
with this case the decisions have been split, meaning therefore that there may
well be very good reasons for reviewing the majority decision of the Supreme
Court..."<o:p></o:p>I will however, reiterate, by way of a reminder,
the words of Taylor, J.S.C. in Bisi vrs. Kwayie [1987-88] 2 GLR 295 at 297
that:—<o:p></o:p>"In
our system of adjudication, the majority view of a plural bench of a court
represents the binding judgment of the court, even if it can be subsequently
demonstrated to be vulnerable to attacks."<o:p></o:p>By virtue of Rule 54 (supra), in an application for
review, what is in issue is, not a matter of headcount, otherwise, why not
count all the way from the trial court/tribunal, up to the Supreme Court, to
ascertain what should be the right decision. Rather, the only matters this
Court is permitted by the law to take in</main>