MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU vs. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WATERVILLE HOLDINGS (BVI) LTD AND ALFRED AGBESI WOYOME [2014]DLSC2918

MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU vs. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WATERVILLE HOLDINGS (BVI) LTD AND... [2014]DLSC2918

Date	2014-07-29
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.J7/10/2013
Citation No.	[2014]DLSC2918

WOOD(MRS) C J (PRESIDING)

ANSAH JSC

ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC

OWUSU (MS) JSC

DOTSE JSC

ANIN YEBOAH JSC

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC

BENIN JSC

AKAMBA JSC

PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT APPEARS FOR HIMSELF.

MRS. DOROTHY AFRIYIE-ANSAH (CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) WITH HER

STELLA BADU (CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT /RESPONDENT

OSAFO- BUABENG WITH HIM REYNOLDS TWUMASI FOR THE 3RD DEFENDANT /RESPONDENT.

[2014]DLSC2918
																																						<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" >MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
WATERVILLE HOLDINGS (BVI) LTD AND ALFRED AGBESI WOYOME<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.J7/10/2013&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 29TH
JULY, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
APPEARS FOR HIMSELF.<o:p></o:p>MRS. DOROTHY AFRIYIE-ANSAH
(CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY)&nbsp; WITH&nbsp; HER STELLA BADU (CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) FOR
THE 1ST DEFENDANT /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">

OSAFO-
BUABENG&nbsp;&nbsp; WITH HIM REYNOLDS TWUMASI FOR
THE 3RD DEFENDANT /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">

WOOD(MRS)
C J (PRESIDING), ANSAH JSC, ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC, OWUSU (MS) JSC, DOTSE JSC, ANIN
YEBOAH JSC, BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC, GBADEGBE JSC, AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC, BENIN JSC, AKAMBA
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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>DOTSE JSC: <o:p></o:p>Writing
on the topic, “The Supreme Court and the
Power of Review” S.Y. Bimpong-Buta,
in Volume XVII, 1989-90, Review of Ghana Law, stated thus:<o:p></o:p>“Whatever lurking doubts existed in the law
as to whether or not the Supreme
Court (as the final appellate court in Ghana) has the power to &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; have a second look at its previous decisions
with a view to correcting &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; its errors or setting it aside on an
application by a dissatisfied party were affirmatively resolved by the landmark
majority decision in Fosuhene v Pomaa, delivered on 26
November 1987. The &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; majority in this case, made of Adade and
Taylor JJSC and Abban JA, “held &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; inter
alia, that the Supreme Court had
jurisdiction to correct its &nbsp;&nbsp; own errors
by way of review and that the application for review must be “founded on compelling reasons and exceptional
circumstances dictated by the interest of justice”. Indeed, on the same day that the majority decision was given
in Fosuhene, the same &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Judges
who formed the majority in Fosuhene, also held in Nasali v Addy &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; [1987-88] 2 GLR 286 that the Supreme
Court had the power to review &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; its
decision.”<o:p></o:p>It
should be noted that, the decisions referred to supra in the article by Dr. S.
Y. Bimpong-Buta, were delivered before the enactment of the Constitution 1992
and the Supreme Court Rules, 1996, C. I. 16.<o:p></o:p>Now,
this review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is provided for under article 133
(1) &amp; (2) of the Constitution 1992 and Rules 54-60 of the Supreme Court
Rules, 1996, C. I. 16.<o:p></o:p>Rule
54 (a) of C. I. 16 under which this review application has been brought by the
Plaintiff/Applicant hereafter referred to as the Applicant, states as follows:-<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “The
Court may review a decision made or given by it on the ground of (a) exceptional circumstances which have resulted
in a miscarriage of justice.”<o:p></o:p>Before
considering the merits of the instant application, which is seeking to review
the judgment of this court rendered on the 14th day of June 2013, it
is worthwhile to observe that in both the Fosuhene
and Nasali cases, the emphasis of the Supreme Court was that, a review
might be granted in the following situations:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Compelling
and exceptional circumstances dictated by the &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; interests
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of justice<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Exceptional
circumstances where the demands of justice &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; made
the exercise extremely necessary to avoid irreparable &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; damage.<o:p></o:p>The
interest of ensuring justice is therefore at the core of considerations that
might lead to a grant of a review application.<o:p></o:p>