OP. KOJO FORI, KYIDOMHENE, ADUM, KUMASI AND OTHERS vs. OP. KOFI AGYEI, GYAASEHENE, ADUM, KWANWOMA AND ANOTHER [2000]DLSC2356

OP. KOJO FORI, KYIDOMHENE, ADUM, KUMASI AND OTHERS vs. OP. KOFI AGYEI, GYAASEHEN... [2000]DLSC2356

Date	2000-10-18
Suit No.	CM. 6/98
Citation No.	[2000]DLSC2356

WIREDU J.S.C (PRESIDING

BAMFORD-ADDO (MRS.) J.S.C

AMPIAH J.S.C

ADJABENG J.S.C

ACQUAH J.S.C.

ATUGUBA J.S.C.

AKUFFO (MS.) J.S.C.

MR. ADUMUAH BOSSMAN FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

MR. KWAKU GYAN FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2000]DLSC2356
																																						<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" >OP. KOJO FORI, KYIDOMHENE, ADUM, KUMASI AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>OP. KOFI AGYEI, GYAASEHENE, ADUM, KWANWOMA AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT OF JUSTICE]<o:p></o:p>CM. 6/98<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: 18TH OCTOBER, 2000.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>MR. ADUMUAH BOSSMAN FOR THE 2ND
DEFENDANT/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&nbsp;&nbsp; (PRESIDING), BAMFORD-ADDO (MRS.), J.S.C, AMPIAH, J.S.C, ADJABENG,
J.S.C, ACQUAH,
J.S.C., ATUGUBA,
J.S.C., &nbsp;AKUFFO
(MS.), J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>RULING<o:p></o:p>EDWARD WIREDU, J.S.C.: <o:p></o:p>The review jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court has been conferred by Article 133(1) of the Constitution, which reads as
follows: —<o:p></o:p>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.”<o:p></o:p>Pursuant to this provision, Rule 54 of
the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I.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>"The Court may review any decision made or given by it on any
of the following grounds — <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>(the emphasis is mine)<o:p></o:p>Clearly, the jurisdiction is restricted
to the review of decisions “made or given by it”; ‘it' being with reference to
the Supreme Court.&nbsp; 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
try-on a new appeal. 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.&nbsp; 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.<o:p></o:p>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.&nbsp; 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>