KOGLEX LTD vs. FIELD [2000]DLSC331

Date	2000-02-16
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2000]DLSC331

ABBAN CJ JSC

AMPIAH JSC

ADJABENG JSC

ACQUAH JSC

ATUGUBA JSC

AKUFO JSC

SAPONG JSC

RAY KAKRABAH-QUARSHIE FOR THE RESPONDENT.

AYIKOI OTOO FOR THE APPLICANT.

[2000]DLSC331
																																						<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">KOGLEX LTD<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">FIELD<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000] 2 GLR 437<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: 16 FEBRUARY 2000<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:AYIKOI OTOO FOR
THE APPLICANT.RAY
KAKRABAH-QUARSHIE FOR THE RESPONDENT.___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________CORAM:ABBAN CJ,
AMPIAH, ADJABENG, ACQUAH, ATUGUBA, AKUFO AND SAPONG JJSC___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Acquah JSC. <o:p></o:p>Delivered the first opinion at the invitation of Abban CJ. This is
an application for a review of the judgment of the ordinary bench of this court
delivered on 20 May 1998. The judgment was by a majority decision of three to
two: per Adjabeng, Atuguba and Akuffo JJSC, with Charles Hayfron-Benjamin and
Ampiah JJSC dissenting.<o:p></o:p>Under rule 54 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (CI 16) as amended,
the grounds entitling one to invoke our review jurisdiction are stated 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">“(a) exceptional circumstances which have resulted in a
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 applicant herein anchors his request under the first limb of
the above rule and therefore concludes paragraph (28) of his statement of case
filed on 18 June 1998 in the following words:<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">“(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 v Central Services Co Ltd [1996-97] SC GLR 398 at 399,
wherein Abban CJ, delivering the opinion of the court, explained that:<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">“. . . such an applicant should satisfy the court that there has
been some fundamental or basic error which the court 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
Ltd v Nartey [1987-88] 2 GLR 598 at 603-604 thus:<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">“The review jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction . . . to be
prayed in aid in the exceptional situation where a fundamental and basic error
may have inadvertently been committed by the court, which error must have
occasioned a gross miscarriage of justice.”<o:p></o:p>Now, a “fundamental error” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary
(6th ed) as:<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">“error which goes to the merits of the . . . cause or action, and
which will be considered on review, whether assigned as error or not, where the
justice of the case seems to require it. Error of such character as to render
judgment void. Error so grave that, if not rectified, would result in denial of
fundamental due process.”<o:p></o:p>