ODEHE VRS MENSAH & 2 ORS (J8/81/2024) [2024] GHASC 55 (13 November 2024)

ODEHE VRS MENSAH & 2 ORS (J8/81/2024) [2024] GHASC 55 (13 November 2024)

The Supreme Court majority held that the application meets the threshold for special leave under Article 131(2) because the appeal raises substantial questions of law regarding the admissibility of unstamped documents, an issue of public importance and persistent confusion. Procedural errors by the applicant were excusable and do not bar the exercise of discretion. Special leave is granted to prevent failure of justice and clarify the law.

Citation
ODEHE VRS MENSAH & 2 ORS (J8/81/2024) [2024] GHASC 55 (13 November 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/applicant: Monica Odehe; Defendant/appellant/respondent: Benjamin Mensah; Defendant/appellant/respondent: Nii Shppi Kutor III; Defendant/appellant/respondent: Evans Tettey Gidigan
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
13 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Motion / Application for Special Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court
Outcome
Special leave to appeal granted by majority; dissenting opinions would have dismissed the application.
Legal Topics
Appellate Jurisdiction, Special Leave to Appeal, Admissibility of Unstamped Documents, Stamp Duty Act, Procedural Timelines
Source Language
eng
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Appellate Jurisdiction Special Leave to Appeal Admissibility of Unstamped Documents Stamp Duty Act Procedural Timelines

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Monica Odehe

Plaintiff/respondent/applicant

Benjamin Mensah

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Nii Shppi Kutor III

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Evans Tettey Gidigan

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Motion / Application for Special Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court should grant special leave to appeal under Article 131(2) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether procedural missteps bar the exercise of special leave jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the appeal raises substantial questions of law or public interest regarding admissibility of unstamped documents

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court majority held that the application meets the threshold for special leave under Article 131(2) because the appeal raises substantial questions of law regarding the admissibility of unstamped documents, an issue of public importance and persistent confusion. Procedural errors by the applicant were excusable and do not bar the exercise of discretion. Special leave is granted to prevent failure of justice and clarify the law.

Court Disposition

Special leave to appeal granted by majority; dissenting opinions would have dismissed the application.

Orders

  • Applicant granted special leave to file appeal in Supreme Court within 7 days.
  • Notice of appeal on record (Exhibit B) struck out as unwarranted.