ADWOA OWUSUWAA vs. NANA ADU AMEYAW, THE EFFIDUASE STOOL, CHRISTIAN COUNCIL AND YAW [2016]DLHC11749

ADWOA OWUSUWAA vs. NANA ADU AMEYAW, THE EFFIDUASE STOOL, CHRISTIAN COUNCIL AND Y... [2016]DLHC11749

Date	2016-11-23
Suit No.	SUIT NO. C1/12/16
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC11749

JUSTICE FRANCIS OBIRI

NYAMAAH POKU FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

GABRIEL KODZI FOR THE 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS

[2016]DLHC11749
																																						<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" >ADWOA
OWUSUWAA<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA
ADU AMEYAW, THE EFFIDUASE STOOL, CHRISTIAN COUNCIL AND YAW<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/ APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. C1/12/16&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;DATE: 23RD
NOVEMBER 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>NYAMAAH POKU FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">GABRIEL KODZI FOR THE 1ST
AND 2ND DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE FRANCIS OBIRI<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;On
23-06-2016, the defendants/applicants (hereinafter called the applicants) filed
a motion on notice for review of a decision of this Court dated 14th June
2016.&nbsp; The said decision was given by
this Court differently constituted and presided over by his Lordship Justice
Paul Richardson who is now on retirement.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
motion filed on 14th June 2016 was in respect of the court refusal to set aside
an order of interim injunction it granted against the applicants, their agents,
servants, assigns, privies etc and any other person whatsoever called from in
any way trespassing, alienating, disposing of, or granting any interest, right
or title or dealing with the land in dispute in anyway until the final
determination of the case.&nbsp; The
injunction order was made on 15th March 2016.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;When
the motion for review by the applicants came up for hearing on 16th
November 2016, before me, Counsel for the plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter
called the respondent) raised a preliminary objection on point of law in
respect of the competency of the motion for review by the applicant in this
case.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Counsel raised two main grounds in
his submission.&nbsp; He contended as follows:<o:p></o:p>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That this Court has no jurisdiction to
review its decision in anyway.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In
the view of the respondent's Counsel, there is no law which currently allows
this Court to review its decision.&nbsp;
Therefore, the applicants’ motion for review filed on 23rd
June 2016 should not be entertained by this Court.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Counsel
cited the case of the Republic V High Court (Commercial Division)
Tamale, Ex parte Dakpemzobogunaa Henry Kaleem (substituted by Alhaji Alhassan I
Dakpema)<o:p></o:p>(Dakpemanaa
Alhassan Mohammed Dawuni-Interested Party) [2015] 89 GMJ 175 SC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Learned
counsel submitted that by that decision, the High Court does not have any
review power under Order 42 of CI 47.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Therefore, the applicant’s application should be dismissed in limine. In
other words, per respondent counsel submission, this court lacks capacity to
entertain the motion for review filed by the applicants.<o:p></o:p>