The Republic Vrs Hc Ex Parte; Opuni [2023] GHASC 43 (22 February 2023)

The Republic Vrs Hc Ex Parte; Opuni [2023] GHASC 43 (22 February 2023)

The application for review was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstance or fundamental error in the Supreme Court's prior decision. The Court reaffirmed that the Chief Justice, not the President, has the authority to extend the tenure of a judge under Article 145(4), as previously settled in Ex parte Daniel. The trial judge acted within jurisdiction, did not breach the nemo judex in causa sua rule, and there was no legal basis for review.

Citation
[2023] GHASC 43
Parties
Applicant/applicant: Stephen Kwabena Opuni; Respondent: High Court (Criminal Division), Accra; Interested Party/respondent: Attorney-General; Interested Party/respondent: Seidu Agongo; Interested Party/respondent: Agricult Ghana Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
22 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Motion (review of Supreme Court Decision) / Ruling on Application for Review
Outcome
application for review dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Tenure, Extension of Judicial Office, Certiorari, Prohibition, Natural Justice, Recusal of Judges, Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Procedure Judicial Review Judicial Tenure Extension of Judicial Office Certiorari Prohibition Natural Justice +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Kwabena Opuni

Applicant/applicant

High Court (Criminal Division), Accra

Respondent

Attorney-General

Interested Party/respondent

Seidu Agongo

Interested Party/respondent

Agricult Ghana Ltd.

Interested Party/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Motion (review of Supreme Court Decision) / Ruling on Application for Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Chief Justice or the President has the authority to extend the tenure of a Superior Court judge under Article 145(4) of the 1992 Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge acted without jurisdiction after attaining retirement age
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge breached the nemo judex in causa sua rule by hearing an application for his own recusal

Ratio Decidendi

The application for review was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstance or fundamental error in the Supreme Court's prior decision. The Court reaffirmed that the Chief Justice, not the President, has the authority to extend the tenure of a judge under Article 145(4), as previously settled in Ex parte Daniel. The trial judge acted within jurisdiction, did not breach the nemo judex in causa sua rule, and there was no legal basis for review.

Court Disposition

application for review dismissed

Orders

  • The application to review the Supreme Court's decision of 24th January 2023 is dismissed in its entirety as being without merit.