THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, ACCRA EX-PARTE; ATTORNEY GENERAL [2012]DLSC2634

Date	2012-07-04
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J5/16/2012
Citation No.	[2012]DLSC2634

DR. DATE-BAH JSC (PRESIDING)

ANSAH JSC

YEBOAH JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

BAMFO (MRS) JSC

KWAME AMOAKO (ASA) LED BY ANTHONY REXFORD WIREDU (PSA)

ASIAMAH SAMPONG (PSA) JOHN TULASI OFORI (ASA) OWUSU AMEYAW (ASA) FOR THE REPUBLIC.

AYIKOI OTOO WITH FRANK DAVIS AND ATTA AKYEA FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY.

[2012]DLSC2634
																																						<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>HIGH COURT,
ACCRA<o:p></o:p>EX-PARTE;
ATTORNEY GENERAL<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. J5/16/2012&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 4TH JULY, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWAME
AMOAKO (ASA), LED BY ANTHONY REXFORD WIREDU (PSA),&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;ASIAMAH SAMPONG (PSA), JOHN TULASI OFORI
(ASA), OWUSU AMEYAW (ASA) FOR THE REPUBLIC.<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">

AYIKOI
OTOO WITH FRANK DAVIS AND ATTA AKYEA FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY.<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">

DR. DATE-BAH JSC (PRESIDING), ANSAH JSC, YEBOAH
JSC, GBADEGBE JSC, 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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>DR DATE-BAH JSC: <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This is the
unanimous ruling of the Court.&nbsp; The
remedy of certiorari has always been
a discretionary one.&nbsp; The authors of De
Smith, Woolf &amp; Jowell’s Principles of Judicial Review (1999), in discussing
the historical development of judicial review remedies and procedures, make the
following pronouncement (at p. 530) in relation to the four prerogative writs
of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, and
habeas corpus:<o:p></o:p>“Though the four writs had acquired their
“prerogative” characteristics by the middle of the seventeenth century,
strangely it was not until a century later, in 1759, that anybody (Mansfield)
seems to have thought of classifying the writs as a group.&nbsp; Those shared characteristics included the
following:<o:p></o:p>1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; They were not writs of course which could be
purchased by or on behalf of any applicant from the Royal Chancery; they could
not be had for the asking, but proper cause had to be shown to the satisfaction
of the court why they should issue.<o:p></o:p>2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The award of the prerogative writs usually lay
within the discretion of the court.&nbsp; The
court was entitled to refuse certiorari and mandamus to applicants if they had
been guilty of unreasonable delay or misconduct or if an adequate alternative
remedy existed, notwithstanding that they have proved a usurpation of
jurisdiction by the inferior tribunal or an omission to perform a public duty.&nbsp; But although none of the prerogative writs
was a writ of course, not all were discretionary.&nbsp; Prohibition, for example, issued as of right
in certain cases; and habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, the most famous of them
all, was a writ of right which issued ex debito justitiae when the applicant
had satisfied the court that his detention was unlawful.&nbsp; These two writs, therefore, were not in the
fullest sense writs of grace.<o:p></o:p>3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; …”<o:p></o:p>