REPUBLIC vs. NUMAPAU AND OTHERS; EX PARTE AMEYAW II [2000]DLSC468

Date	2000-01-12
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2000]DLSC468

EDWARD WIREDU JSC

BAMFORD-ADDO JSC

AMPIAH JSC

ADJABENG JSC

ACQUAH JSC

ATUGUBA JSC

AKUFFO JSC

KWASI DANSO ACHEAMPONG FOR THE APPLICANT.

NANA ADJEI AMPOFO FOR THE FIRST TO TWELFTH AND FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH RESPONDENTS.

KWAMI TETTEH (WITH HIM ANTHONY FORSON JNR) FOR THE SIXTEENTH RESPONDENT.

[2000]DLSC468
																																						<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">REPUBLIC<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">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; vs.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">NUMAPAU AND OTHERS; EX PARTE AMEYAW II<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000] 2 GLR 629<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" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 12
JANUARY 2000<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWASI DANSO ACHEAMPONG FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>NANA ADJEI AMPOFO FOR THE FIRST TO TWELFTH AND FOURTEENTH AND
FIFTEENTH RESPONDENTS.<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">

KWAMI TETTEH (WITH HIM ANTHONY
FORSON, JNR) FOR THE SIXTEENTH RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

EDWARD WIREDU, BAMFORD-ADDO,
AMPIAH, ADJABENG, ACQUAH, ATUGUBA AND AKUFFO JJSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Edward Wiredu
JSC. <o:p></o:p>Delivered the ruling of the majority of the court. On 21 July 1999,
this court, by a majority decision, dismissed an application brought by the
applicant herein for the attachment of the sixteen 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: “ (i)
the ruling was given per incuriam for failure to consider the case law and
statute law relevant to the application, and (ii) 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 (CI 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><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>In effect, these limited grounds are no different from those
previously prescribed when the power of review was not statutory, but was
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 re-hearing 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”: see
Mechanical Lloyd Assembly Plant Ltd v Nartey [1987-88] 2 GLR 598, SC; and
Quartey v Central Services Co Ltd [1996-1997] SC GLR 398. In addition to such
exceptional circumstance, rule 54 of CI 16 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 Black’s Law Dictionary
defines miscarriage of justice “to mean” prejudice to the substantial rights of
a party.” This definition we find very useful. In sum, therefore, in this
application, it was incumbent on the applicant to show that his substantial
rights in the matter that came before this court have been prejudiced by some
fundamental or basic error made by the majority. As was aptly put by this court
in Agyekum v Asakum Engineering Construction Ltd [1992] 2 GLR 635 at 637 (per
holding (2)): “The acid test remained always the existence of exceptional
circumstances and the likelihood of a miscarriage of justice that should
provoke the conscience to look at the matter again.” For, as was pointed out by
Taylor JSC in Nasali v Addy [1987-1988] 2 GLR 286 at 288:<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-shado</main>