MR. SAMUEL OKUDZETO ABLAKWA AND DR. EDWARD KOFI OMANE BOAMAH vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND HON. JAKE OTANKA OBETSEBI-LAMPTEY [2013]DLSC2742

MR. SAMUEL OKUDZETO ABLAKWA AND DR. EDWARD KOFI OMANE BOAMAH vs. THE ATTORNEY-GE... [2013]DLSC2742

Date	2013-01-23
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J7/5/2012
Citation No.	[2013]DLSC2742

ATUGUBA JSC. (PRESIDING)

DR. DATE-BAH JSC

ANSAH JSC

ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC

OWUSU (MS) JSC

DOTSE JSC

ANIN YEBOAH JSC BAFFOE BONNIE JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC

AKAMBA JSC

KWABLA SENANU FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS.

CECIL ADADEVOH PSA FOR THE 1STDEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT.

R. O. SOLOMON (LED BY RIBEIRO) FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2013]DLSC2742
																																						<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" >MR. SAMUEL
OKUDZETO ABLAKWA AND DR. EDWARD KOFI OMANE BOAMAH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE
ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND HON. JAKE OTANKA OBETSEBI-LAMPTEY<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:
inter-ideograph;line-height:150%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL
APPEAL NO. J7/5/2012&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 23RD
JANUARY, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>KWABLA SENANU FOR THE
PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS.<o:p></o:p>CECIL ADADEVOH PSA, FOR
THE 1STDEFENDANT/ 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">

R.
O. SOLOMON (LED BY RIBEIRO) FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>ATUGUBA
JSC. (PRESIDING), DR. DATE-BAH JSC, ANSAH JSC, ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC, OWUSU
(MS) JSC, DOTSE JSC, ANIN YEBOAH&nbsp; JSC
BAFFOE BONNIE JSC, GBADEGBE &nbsp;JSC,
AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC, AKAMBA&nbsp; JSC<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:150%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>DR.
DATE-BAH,JSC;<o:p></o:p>This is an application for
a review of the judgment of this Court delivered on 22nd May 2012 by
a panel of nine judges.&nbsp; Being a review
application, the burden on the applicants is to satisfy this Court that there
are, in the words of Rule 54(a) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 CI 16, in this
case “(a) exceptional circumstances which have resulted in miscarriage of
justice.”&nbsp;&nbsp; This Court has held time and
time again that a review application is not an appeal and should not be argued
as if it were.&nbsp; Accordingly, before this
Court enters into the full merits of the review application, it should be
satisfied that the case falls intoone of the categories that existing case law
has held to justify the exercise of the review jurisdiction or into a new
category justifying such review, since the cases have also held that the
categories justifying review are not closed.<o:p></o:p>I made a similar point in Gihoc Refrigeration &amp; Household Products
(No. 1)&nbsp; v&nbsp; Hanna Assi (No. 1)&nbsp; [2007-2008] SCGLR 1, where in concurring with
the lead judgment (at pp. 12 – 15), I said:<o:p></o:p>“I wish,
however, to add a few general comments with a view to giving further guidance
to prospective applicants for review before this court.&nbsp; In my view, counsel before this court and
their clients too lightly apply for review in circumstances which are far from
exceptional.&nbsp; The law is clear and should
really not need any further clarification by this Court.<o:p></o:p>Even if
the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court on the appeal in this case were
wrong, it would not necessarily mean that the Supreme Court would be entitled
to correct that error.&nbsp; This is an
inherent incident of the finality of the judgments of the final court of appeal
of the land.&nbsp; The brutal truth is that an
error by the final court of the land cannot ordinarily be remedied by itself,
subject to the exception discussed&nbsp;
below.&nbsp; In other words, there is
no right of appeal against a judgment of the Supreme Court, even if it is
erroneous.&nbsp; As pithily explained by Wuaku
JSC in Afranie v Quarcoo [1992] 2GLR 561 at pp. 591-592:<o:p></o:p>“There is only one Supreme Court.&nbsp; A review court is not an appellate court to
sit in judgment over the Supreme Court.”<o:p></o:p>However, in exceptional circumstances and in
relation to an exceptional category of its errors, the Supreme Court will give
relief through its review jurisdiction.&nbsp;
The grounds on which this Court will grant an application for review
have been clearly laid out in the case law.&nbsp;
Notable in the long line of relevant cases are Mechanical Lloyd Assembly Plant v Nartey [1987-88] 2 GLR
598;&nbsp; Bisi and Others v Kwayie [1987-88] 2 GLR&nbsp; 295; Nasali
v Addy [1987-88] 2GLR 286; Ababio
v Mensah (No.2) [1989-90] 1 GLR 573; Quartey v Central Services Co. Ltd. [1996 – 97] SCGLR 398; Pianim (No. 3) v Ekwam [1996-97]
SCGLR 431;&nbsp; Koglex (Gh) Ltd. v Attieh [2001-2002]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; SCGLR 947;&nbsp; and Attorney-General (No. 2) v Tsatsu Tsikata
(No.2) [2001-2002] SCGLR 620.&nbsp; The
principles established by these cases and others are that the review
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is a special jurisdiction and is not intended
to provide an opportunity for a further appeal.&nbsp;
It is a jurisdiction which is to be exercised where the applicant
succeeds in persuading the Court that there has been some fundamental or basic
error which the Court inadvertently committed in the course of delivering its
judgment and which error has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.&nbsp; This ground of the review jurisdictio</main>