THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, ACCRA EXPARTE: TSATSU TSIKATA NII AMANOR DODOO AND 16 OTHERS [2020]DLSC8529

THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, ACCRA EXPARTE: TSATSU TSIKATA NII AMANOR DODOO AND... [2020]DLSC8529

Date	2020-02-19
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J7/12/2019
Citation No.	[2020]DLSC8529

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

PWAMANG JSC

MARFUL-SAU JSC

AMEGATCHER JSC

KOTEY JSC

OWUSU (MS) JSC

HAROLD ATUGUBA FOR THE APPLICANT.

JOSPEPH KWADWO KONADU FOR INTERESTED PARTIES/RESPONDENTS

[2020]DLSC8529
																																						<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://dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://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><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>HIGH COURT, ACCRA<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EXPARTE:
TSATSU TSIKATA<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>NII AMANOR DODOO AND 16 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(INTERESTED
PARTIES/RESPONDENTS)<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

CIVIL
MOTION NO. J7/12/2019&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 19TH FEBRUARY, 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>HAROLD
ATUGUBA FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

JOSPEPH
KWADWO KONADU FOR INTERESTED PARTIES/RESPONDENTS.<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

DOTSE
JSC (PRESIDING), BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC, PWAMANG JSC, MARFUL-SAU JSC, AMEGATCHER JSC,
KOTEY JSC, OWUSU (MS) 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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>DOTSE
JSC: -<o:p></o:p>The Supreme Court, in the oft quoted locus
classicus case on the scope of the review jurisdiction of this court, held in
the case of Quartey v Central Services Co. Ltd [1996-97] SCGLR 398 as
follows:-<o:p></o:p>“A review of a judgment is a
special jurisdiction and not an appellate jurisdiction, conferred on the court;
and the court would exercise that special jurisdiction in favour of an
applicant only in exceptional circumstances. This implies that such an
applicant should satisfy the court that there has been some fundamental or basic error which the court inadvertently committed
in the course of considering its judgment, and which fundamental error has
thereby resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice. These principles have
been stated over and over again by this court. Consequently, a losing party is
not entitled to use the review process to re-argue his appeal which had been
dismissed or use the process to prevail upon the court to have another or
second look at his case.” Emphasis <o:p></o:p>In a well researched and written statement of case
filed by learned counsel for the Applicant, Harold Atuguba in support of this
review application, learned counsel stated explicitly in the concluding stages
of the statement of case as follows:<o:p></o:p>“Rule 54 (a) of the Supreme Court Rules gives the Honourable Court
power to review its decision in “exceptional
circumstances”. Emphasis <o:p></o:p>Again, the Supreme Court in a bid to stem the tide
in the growing number of review applications that were flooding the apex court,
came out with what it called a roadmap in the case of Arthur (No.2) v Arthur (No.2)
[2013 – 2014] 569, at pages 579 to 580, where the court stated in clear
terms as follows:-<o:p></o:p>“We are therefore constrained to send a note of caution to all those
who apply for the review jurisdiction of this court under Rule 54 (a) of the
Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (CI 16), to be mindful of the following we set out as
a road map. It is neither an
exhaustive list nor one that is cast in iron such that it cannot be varied
depending upon the circumstances of each case.<o:p></o:p>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
In the first place, it must be established that
the review application filed within time limits specified in rule 55 of C. I.
16, i.e. it shall be filed at the Registry of the Supreme Court not later than
one month from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed;<o:p></o:p>ii.