REPUBLIC vs. GHANA NATIONAL GAS COMPANY EXPARTE: KINGS CITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LANDS COMMISSION [2021]DLSC11157

REPUBLIC vs. GHANA NATIONAL GAS COMPANY EXPARTE: KINGS CITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY... [2021]DLSC11157

Date	2021-12-15
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/61/2021
Citation No.	[2021]DLSC11157

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)

PWAMANG JSC

LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC

HONYENUGA JSC

AMADU JSC

NII ODOI ODOTEI ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT

EYRAM AKYEA-ANSAH ESQ. FOR APPLICANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.

[2021]DLSC11157
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA NATIONAL GAS COMPANY<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>EXPARTE: KINGS CITY DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (APPLICANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>LANDS COMMISSION<o:p></o:p>(INTERESTED PARTY/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<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="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;line-height:150%;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/61/2021&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;DATE: 15TH DECEMBER, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>NII
ODOI ODOTEI ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.<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;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">EYRAM AKYEA-ANSAH ESQ. FOR APPLICANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>DOTSE JSC
(PRESIDING), PWAMANG JSC, LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC, HONYENUGA JSC, AMADU JSC <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;line-height:150%;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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;PWAMANG
JSC:-<o:p></o:p>My Lords, the kernel of this case is in a small
compass and it is whether, on the facts, the procedure by which the
applicant/respondent/respondent (applicant) sought redress from the High Court
was appropriate and whether the Court of Appeal ought to have upheld the
arguments of the 1st respondent/appellant/appellant (respondent) and
allowed the appeal. Procedural law is a vitalintegral component of law as a whole.
Its remit is theprescription of remedies, theregulation of the meansby which
persons who are aggrieved may seek redress and the manner in which court
proceedings are to be conducted. In respect of certain matters, legal remedies
and procedure areprovided for insubstantive statuteor even ina constitutional
text, for example,criminal offences and evidence. But, it is mostly by
subsidiary legislation and the settled practices of the courts that the
detailed rules of procedure for civil casesare provided for.As a majorraison d’etre of laws in any society is
to ensure the orderly conduct of human affairs, judges have
insistedperennially, that procedure rules must be observed strictly, except
inspecial circumstances that are clearly stated. Consequently, the fact that a
person has a claim which is judicially enforceable does not entitle her to walk
into any court building or approach any judge and request for any form of
remedy.<o:p></o:p>In the case of Republic v High Court, Koforidua; Ex parte Asare (Baba Jamal and Electoral
Commission-Interested Parties) [2009] SCGLR 460,the 1stinterested
party was the National Democratic Congress (NDC) parliamentary candidate at the
parliamentary election for Akwatia Constituency in 2008. At the close of
voting,the Electoral Commission(EC) noticed some irregularities at six polling
stations and decided to conduct a re-run at those polling stations but the
interested party protested, claiming that the irregularitieswere widespread so
the re-run ought to be conducted at all the polling stations. In order to stop
the EC&nbsp; from doing the re-run at only six
polling stations, the interested party filed a writ of summons in the High
Court, Koforidua and obtained an order of injunction restraining the EC from
conducting the re-run at the six polling stations. The New Patriotic Party
(NPP) candidate, who appeared to be winning the election, applied to the High
Court and was joined to the suit after which the interested party amended his
writ of summons and claimed for a declaration that the elections were fraught
with widespread irregularities and ought to be cancelled and for an order for a
re-run of the entire election. The NPP candidate then filed a motion to set
aside the writ of summons arguing that thefiling of a writ of summons to
commence the case, instead of an election petition as stated in the electoral
law, denied the court jurisdiction in the case. His motion was dismissed by the
High Court. On an application by the NPP candidate for certiorari to the
Supreme Court, the court quashed the whole proceedings in the High Court on the
ground that the procedure adopted by the plaintiff in filing a writ of summons
instead of an election petition was fundamentally flawed. Dotse, JSC in his
concurring opinion at page 514 of the Report observed as follows;<o:p></o:p>“In
the instant case, the first interested party are in the right forum. However,
the procedure adopted was clearly wrong, unwarranted and an abuse of the
process of the court. It is the non-compliance with the procedural requirements
that the first interested party has faulted in, thereby making the commencement
of the entire action premature and unwarranted in law.”<o:p></o:p>At page 511 my distinguished brother added as
follows;<o:p></o:p>“I
belief the time is ripe for the courts of law to frown upon and condemn an</main>