BERNARD ANBATAAYELA MORNAH vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2013]DLSC2695

Date	2013-04-30
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J1/7/2013
Citation No.	[2013]DLSC2695

ANSAH J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

ADINYIRA (MRS) J.S.C.

OWUSU (MS.) J.S.C.

ANIN YEBOAH J.S.C.

GBADEGBE J.S.C.

AKOTO- BAMFO (MRS) J.S.C.

BENIN J.S.C.

BENSON NUTSUKPUI FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

SYLVESTER WILLIAMS (PSA) WITH HIM MRS. JULIANA ADDO- YOBO (SA) FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2013]DLSC2695
																																						<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" >BERNARD ANBATAAYELA
MORNAH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE 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. J1/7/2013&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: 30TH APRIL, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>BENSON NUTSUKPUI FOR THE
PLAINTIFF.<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">

SYLVESTER
WILLIAMS (PSA) WITH HIM MRS.&nbsp; JULIANA
ADDO- YOBO (SA) FOR THE DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>

ANSAH
J.S.C. (PRESIDING), ADINYIRA (MRS) J.S.C., OWUSU (MS.) J.S.C., ANIN YEBOAH
J.S.C., GBADEGBE J.S.C., AKOTO- BAMFO (MRS) J.S.C., BENIN J.S.C.<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">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>BENIN,
J.S.C:- <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff brought this action invoking the original jurisdiction of this court.
The reliefs sought are:<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;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;">i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
A declaration that on a
true and proper interpretation of Articles 133, 157, 93(2) and 11 of the 1992
Constitution, Rule 71B and a part of Rule 69C(5) of the Supreme Court
(Amendment) Rules, 2012 (C.I.74) are unconstitutional and must be declared null
and void and of no effect.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;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;">ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Any consequential orders
the Supreme Court may deem meet.<o:p></o:p>There
are two clear and distinct reliefs. The first is by virtue of Rule 71B of C.I.
74 which amends part of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C. I. 16) pertaining to
review. The second is by virtue of Rule 69C(5) which prescribes days of sitting
in Presidential Election petition. <o:p></o:p>Rule
71B provides:<o:p></o:p>No
Review<o:p></o:p>Rule
55 does not apply to decision of the Court in respect of a petition presented
to challenge the election of a President.<o:p></o:p>The
said Rule 55 provides that ‘An application for review shall be filed at
the Registry of the Court not later
than one month from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed.’<o:p></o:p>In
construing a part of an enactment, the court must have regard to the entire
legislation, and also put the part under consideration in context of the
legislation. Rule 55 falls under Part V of C.I. 16 under the heading REVIEW.
The said Part V sets out the practice and procedure regulating the exercise of
the court’s review jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p>The
scope of Rule 55 is restrictive in the context of the entire Part V, and the
language is very clear and simple requiring no interpretation. It only sets the
time frame within which an application may be brought for review. Counsel for
the defendant got it partly right when he stated that “.........Rule 55 relates
to the time for applying for review in the Supreme Court. This Rule has been
revoked by Rule 71B........of C. I. 74.” Thus, the reality is that Rule 71B of C.
I. 74 having abolished Rule 55 in relation to Presidential Election petitions,
it means no more than that when it comes to Presidential Election petitions
there is no time limit within which a party may apply for review. This may
sound unusual but, nonetheless, it’s not illegal. Fixing of time within which a
party may apply for review before the Supreme Court falls within the competence
of the Rules of Court Committee under Article 64(3) as well as Article 133(1)
of the Constitution. <o:p></o:p>To
recap, the provision under consideration only sought to remove the time frame
within which an application for review may be brought in Presidential Election
petition. It does not purport to abolish the right of a party to apply for
review and the court’s review jurisdiction which is established by Article
133(1) of the Constitution. This is duly recognised under Part V of C.I.16, wherein
the practice and procedure governing review in this court has been set down.
Part of the opening sentence of Rule 54 is very significant to note. It reads:
‘The
Court may review any decision made or given by it.....’ This is a
re-statement of Article 133(1) of the Constitution, and the right of review was
thus kept intact. Whereas Rule 54 retains the court’s right to review its own
decision and a fortiori a party’s right to apply for review, Rule 55 for its
part removes any time limitation in Presidential Election petition.<o:p></o:p>