NII KPOBI TETTEY TSURU III vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2011]DLSC4104

Date	2011-04-13
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTIN SUIT NO. J7/7/2010
Citation No.	[2011]DLSC4104

ATUGUBA JSC. (PRESIDING)

AKUFFO (MS) JSC

ANSAH JSC

ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC

OWUSU (MS) JSC

DOTSE JSC

BONNIE JSC

WILLIAM ADDO FOR THE APPLICANT.

MRS. SYLVIA ADUSU (CSA) FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2011]DLSC4104
																																						<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" >&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>NII KPOBI TETTEY TSURU
III<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL<o:p></o:p>[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 MOTIN SUIT NO. J7/7/2010&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;DATE: 13TH APRIL, 2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>WILLIAM ADDO FOR THE
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">

MRS.
SYLVIA ADUSU (CSA) FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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">

<h2 style="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"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">ATUGUBA JSC. (PRESIDING), AKUFFO (MS) JSC, ANSAH
JSC, ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC, OWUSU (MS) JSC, DOTSE JSC, AND BONNIE JSC<o:p></o:p></h2>

</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">

JUDGMENT&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

</div>ATUGUBA,&nbsp;
J.S.C:<o:p></o:p>The main issue raised by this Review application
is whether the decision of&nbsp; this court
(by 4-1 majority) dated 19/5/2011 that article 20(5) and (6) of the 1992
constitution is inapplicable to the La Wireless Station Land situate, lying and
being at Cantonments, Accra, because the said land had been compulsorily
acquired by the State in 1947, long before the advent of the said constitution,
should be reversed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Review jurisdiction of this court
is laid down in article 133(l) of the constitution as follows: <o:p></o:p>“133Power of the Supreme Court to review its
decision<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Pursuant to this rule 54 of the Supreme Court
Rules, 1996 (C.1.16) provides thus:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“54.Grounds for review<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Court may review a decision made or given
by it on the ground of exceptional
circumstances which have resulted in
a miscarriage of &nbsp;&nbsp;justice;
or the 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 the applicant at the time
when the decision was given.” (e.s)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The present application is plainly premised
on r.54(a) and does not involve r.54 (b).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is very trite learning that r.54(a) has
been construed to mean the incidence of a fundamental or basic error which has
occasioned substantial injustice to a party.<o:p></o:p><h2 style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">Per Incuriam
Decisions<o:p></o:p></h2><h2 style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;font-weight:normal;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">It is indisputable that one of the settled
fundamental or basic errors that a court can commit i</main>