THE REPUBLIC vs. CIRCUIT COURT ‘B’ ACCRA EX PARTE: MADAM REBECCA KOMELEY ADAMS AND OTHERS [2011]DLSC2658

THE REPUBLIC vs. CIRCUIT COURT ‘B’ ACCRA EX PARTE: MADAM REBECCA KOMELEY ADAMS A... [2011]DLSC2658

Date	2011-11-16
Suit No.	[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA] CIVIL APPEAL NO. J5/23/2009
Citation No.	[2011]DLSC2658

ATUGUBA JSC (PRESIDING)

DATE-BAH JSC

ANSAH JSC

BONNIE JSC

AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC

SARAH KUSI FOR THE RESPONDENT

PRINCE FREDERICK NEE ASHIE NEEQUAYE FOR THE APPELLANT

[2011]DLSC2658
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CIRCUIT COURT ‘B’ ACCRA<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE: MADAM REBECCA KOMELEY ADAMS AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J5/23/2009 &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;DATE: 16TH NOVEMBER, 2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>SARAH KUSI FOR THE
RESPONDENT.<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">

PRINCE
FREDERICK NEE ASHIE NEEQUAYE FOR THE APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<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">

ATUGUBA, JSC (PRESIDING)
DATE-BAH, JSC ANSAH, JSC BONNIE, JSC AND AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS), JSC<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGEMENT <o:p></o:p>

</div>ATUGUBA, J.S.C:<o:p></o:p>I have had the advantage of
reading beforehand the able judgment of my brother Dr. Date-Bah JSC. I agree
that Ashong-Yakubu, J. was wrong in quashing the judgment, the subject matter
of the application for certiorari on the ground that the conveyance of title
did not have the requisite Ministerial concurrence in breach of the
Administration of Lands Act (Act 123).&nbsp; A
court cannot give a judgment contrary to statute. However, for my part I cannot
see such an error on the face of the record. I know of no law which states that
the concurrence of the Minister when obtained must be stated on the face of the
conveyance. Indeed it is trite law that such concurrence need not be
contemporaneous with the grant but can validly and subsequently be obtained
after the execution of the conveyance. It may well be that such concurrence was
not obtained before or at the time of the Circuit Court’s judgment in this
case. However such error, if there be, has not been carried on the face of the
record in this case. If that error therefore exists it must be a latent error
and certiorari does not lie for latent errors.<o:p></o:p>As regards whether the
common law principle that certiorari normally would not lie if there is a
pending appeal has been overtaken by the provision of the 1992 Constitution
relating to the supervisory jurisdiction of this court, I do not think that
principle has been necessarily so overtaken. The supervisory jurisdiction of
this court is derived from the common law which formulated it as a prerogative
process. See Darawi &amp; Sons v. Dako
(1961) 1 GLR 72 S.C. and Republic v. High
Court, Accra; Ex parte CHRAJ (Addo Interested Party) (2003-2004) SCGLR 312
at 326. Certiorari is certainly among
the remedies open to an applicant under the court’s supervisory jurisdiction.
Thus, article 161, the relevant interpretation provision, provides as follows:<o:p></o:p>“161.
Interpretation<o:p></o:p>“supervisory
jurisdiction”
includes jurisdiction to issue writs or orders in the nature of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition and quo
warranto.”<o:p></o:p>The nature of the
jurisdiction to issue these remedies has not been stated in the Constitution.
But there is some law within the Constitution which spells out that
jurisdiction. That law is the existing law under article 11 of the Constitution
which is the law that spells out the common law nature of those remedies. It
follows that the common law nature of those remedies has been adopted by
article 132 which provides thus:<o:p></o:p>“132. Supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Supreme Court shall have supervisory jurisdiction
over all courts and over any adjudicating authority and may, in the exercise of
that supervisory jurisdiction, issue orders and directions for the purpose of
enforcing or securing the enforcement of its supervisory power.”<o:p></o:p>It is for such reasons that
this court was able to hold in Ackah v.
Adjei-Acheampong (2005-2006) SCGLR 1 that the pre-existing common law power
of contempt under article 126(2) of the Constitution can be accessed by
individuals and&nbsp; cannot be overtaken by
the prosecutorial powers of the Attorney-General under article 188 of the
Constitution. There is judicial anxiety that if certiorari lies side by side
with an existing appeal there is the danger that the decision on certiorari
will avail nothing if the same order has been&nbsp;
confirmed on appeal. Also, if an applicant for certiorari can get the
reliefs he is seeking from a pending appeal (which is ready to be heard) it is,
if anything an abuse of the process in the nature of lis alibi pendens to convoke the supervisory relief. It must be
remembered that the prerogative origin of the prerogative orders of certiorari,
mandamus etc holds that it is a specialised residual jurisdiction and therefore
has some peculia</main>