NANA OSEI WORAE AND THE REPUBLIC vs. 1-16 PEOPLE [2000]DLSC2353

Date	2000-01-12
Suit No.	Civil Motion No. 39/99
Citation No.	[2000]DLSC2353

Edward Wiredu (Presiding

Mrs. J Bamford-Addo J.S.C

Ampiah J.S.C.

Adjabeng J.S.C

Acquah J.S.C

Atuguba J.S.C

Ms. Akuffo J.S.C.

MR. AHENKORAH FOR APPLICANT.

KWAME TETTEH FOR 16TH RESPONDENT.

NANA AGYEI AMPOFO FOR RESPONDENTS.

[2000]DLSC2353
																																						<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" >NANA OSEI WORAE AND THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>1-16 PEOPLE<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT]<o:p></o:p>Civil Motion
&nbsp;No. 39/99<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
January, 2000.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&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">

<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">Edward Wiredu (Presiding), Mrs. J Bamford-Addo J.S.C., Ampiah J.S.C., Adjabeng,
J.S.C. Acquah, J.S.C., Atuguba
J.S.C., Ms.&nbsp;
Akuffo, J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div>RULING<o:p></o:p>EDWARD WIREDU, J.S.C.:<o:p></o:p>On July 14th 1999, this Court, by a
majority decision, dismissed an application, brought by the applicant herein,
for the attachment of the 16 Respondents herein for contempt of court. By the
instant application, the applicant prays this Court to review its said decision
upon the ground that the decision has ‘occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice
and therefore it is in the interest of justice that the ruling be reviewed'.
According to the Statement of Case filed on behalf of the applicant, this
contention is based on two grounds, namely that: -<o:p></o:p>1. "the Ruling was given per incuriam for failure to consider
the case law and statute law relevant to the application", and<o:p></o:p>2. "the applicant's case was not adequately considered."<o:p></o:p>The power of this Court to review its
decisions is governed by Rule 54 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I.16),
which stipulates the only grounds upon which we may exercise that power. These
grounds are very well known to any assiduous practitioner, however, for ease of
reference we set them out in full 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 applicant's knowledge or
could not be produced by him at the time when the decision was given."<o:p></o:p>In effect, these limited grounds are no
different from those previously prescribed when the power of review was not
statutory but, rather, premised on the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. It
has been held time and again that the review process must never be viewed or used
as a devise for a rehearing of the applicant's case. Therefore, the case of the
applicant, in support of an application for review, must clearly establish
factors that would justify the application under either of the stipulated
grounds.<o:p></o:p>It is clear that the application herein
was made under the first ground and therefore, to succeed, the applicant must
demonstrate to us the existence of exceptional factors which show that the
decision of the majority has manifestly resulted in a miscarriage of justice. What
constitutes exceptional circumstances cannot be comprehensively defined. In
previous decisions, it has been described as ‘some fundamental or basic error,
which the court inadvertently committed in the course of considering its
judgment' (cf. Mechanical Lloyd Assembly Plant Ltd. V. Nartey, [1987-88] 2 GLR
598 and Quartey and Others V. Central Services Co. Ltd., [1996-1997] SCGLR
398). In addition to such exceptional circumstance, the Rule 54 dictates that
the applicant must also demonstrate that the result of the exceptional
circumstances has been a miscarriage of justice. The Revised 4th Edition of
Blacks Law Dictionary defines 'Miscarriage of Justice' to mean, "Prejudice
to the substantial rights of a party." This definition we find very useful.</main>