THE REPUBLIC vs. THE HIGH COURT (FAST TRACK DIV.) ACCRA EX PARTE: ANANE AGYEI FORSON (APPLICANT) AND THE ATTORNEY

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE HIGH COURT (FAST TRACK DIV.) ACCRA EX PARTE: ANANE AGYEI FO... [2014]DLSC5080

Date	2014-11-05
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO.J5/29/2014
Citation No.	[2014]DLSC5080

ATUGUBA J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

BAFFOE BONNIE J.S.C.

AKOTO BAMFO (MRS) J.S.C.

BENIN J.S.C.

AKAMBA J.S.C.

THADDEUS SORY ESQ. WITH HIM KWAKU AFRIFA NSIAH ASARE AND EDZE

AGBEVEY FOR THE APPLICANT.

HELENA FRENCH (STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY.

[2014]DLSC5080
																																						<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>THE HIGH COURT (FAST TRACK DIV.) ACCRA<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE: ANANE AGYEI
FORSON (APPLICANT) AND THE ATTORNEY –
GENERAL (INTERESTED PART)<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;mso-outline-level:1;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL
MOTION NO.J5/29/2014&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;5THNOVEMBER 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>THADDEUS SORY
ESQ. WITH HIM KWAKU AFRIFA NSIAH ASARE AND EDZE AGBEVEY 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">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;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">HELENA
FRENCH (STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>ATUGUBA J.S.C.
(PRESIDING), BAFFOE BONNIE J.S.C., AKOTO BAMFO (MRS) J.S.C., BENIN J.S.C., AKAMBA
J.S.C. <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="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>BENIN,
JSC:-<o:p></o:p>The application has been brought before
this court seeking a prohibiting order against the High Court on ground that
the said court has no jurisdiction in the matter brought before it by the Attorney-General,
Interested Party herein, against a foreign firm called Isofoton SA, represented
by a Ghanaian citizen called Anane Agyei Forson. The basis of the claim by the
Attorney-General is that this court ordered Isofoton to refund some sums of
money that the Government of Ghana had paid to the said Isofoton under a contract
which the court had declared void. That judgment was obtained in an action
brought against Isofoton and two others by a private Ghanaian citizen named
Martin Amidu, a former Attorney-General of Ghana. In order to secure the
benefit of that judgment the Attorney-General brought an action by way of a
writ of summons at the High Court to recover the sums of money Isofoton was
ordered to refund to the Ghana Government. <o:p></o:p>It
is undisputed that the action before the High Court arose out of this court’s
judgment in suit number J1/23/2012 intituled:<o:p></o:p>MARTIN
ALAMISI AMIDU<o:p></o:p>V.<o:p></o:p>1.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL<o:p></o:p>2.
ISOFOTON, SA<o:p></o:p>3.
ANANE-AGYEI FORSON<o:p></o:p>dated
21st June 2013, unreported. The material part of the said judgment
reads: “……..It is consequentially ordered pursuant to article 2(2) of the 1992
Constitution that the 2nd Defendant is to pay or refund to the
Government of Ghana the cedi equivalent of US$325,472.00 received from the
Government of Ghana and any subsequent payments thereafter made so far pursuant
to the contracts declared void by this court.<o:p></o:p>Interest
is to paid on the sum adjudged above from the date of its receipt by the 2nd
defendant, in accordance with the Court (Award of Interest and post judgment
interest Rules)…..”<o:p></o:p>The
reliefs sought by the Attorney-General at the High Court against Isofoton are
exactly the awards made by the Supreme Court in favour of the Government of
Ghana in the above quoted judgment. Thus, as rightly pointed out by the High
Court in its ruling dismissing an application to set aside the writ of summons,
“there is …no doubt that this writ is to enforce the judgment of the Supreme
Court referred to above.” The High Court concluded that the Attorney-General,
plaintiff in the suit before it could maintain the action notwithstanding that
it seeks to enforce a judgment of this court.<o:p></o:p>The
applicant could have appealed against the said ruling but instead it chose to
invoke this court’s supervisory jurisdiction for an order of prohibition to
stop the High Court from hearing the said suit for lack of jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p>Thus
the issue or question raised in this application is very limited to matters of
practice and procedure. Is a person in whose favour an order has been made by
this Court justified in issuing a writ of summons at the High Court to enforce
it?<o:p></o:p>Admittedly,
unlike the High Court rules which make adequate provisions as to the modes of
implementing its decisions and orders, the Supreme Court rules do not contain
such provisions. However, what is important to note is whether the Supreme
Court has the power and ability to implement its own decisions. Before we address
</main>