Ofori Vrs Ecobank Ghana and Others [2021] GHASC 84 (13 July 2021)

Ofori Vrs Ecobank Ghana and Others [2021] GHASC 84 (13 July 2021)

The majority held that the application was misconceived and an abuse of process because the Supreme Court Rules provided a specific procedure for review and adducing fresh evidence, which the applicant had already used and exhausted. The alleged new evidence was not truly new, was not relevant to the issues determined in the appeal, and the respondent's conduct in collecting dividends was lawful under binding judgments pending appeal. There was no unfair procedure or injustice warranting invocation of inherent jurisdiction.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 84
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/appellant/respondent: Daniel Ofori; 1st Defendant/respondent/respondent/applicant: Ecobank Ghana Limited; 4th Defendant: Securities and Exchange Commission; 5th Defendant: Ghana Stock Exchange
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
13 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Motion / Application to Re Open Appeal and Adduce Further Evidence After Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed (majority); Dissent would have granted application to re-open appeal and adduce new evidence.
Legal Topics
Inherent Jurisdiction, Review of Judgments, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Finality of Litigation, Fraud on the Court
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Banking Law Securities Law Inherent Jurisdiction Review of Judgments Fresh Evidence on Appeal Finality of Litigation Fraud on the Court

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Ofori

Plaintiff/appellant/appellant/respondent

Ecobank Ghana Limited

1st Defendant/respondent/respondent/applicant

Securities and Exchange Commission

4th Defendant

Ghana Stock Exchange

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Motion / Application to Re Open Appeal and Adduce Further Evidence After Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court can re-open a concluded appeal and allow further evidence based on its inherent jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's alleged new evidence meets the threshold for fresh evidence on appeal
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the respondent in collecting dividends after claiming to have divested shares constitutes fraud or abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the application was misconceived and an abuse of process because the Supreme Court Rules provided a specific procedure for review and adducing fresh evidence, which the applicant had already used and exhausted. The alleged new evidence was not truly new, was not relevant to the issues determined in the appeal, and the respondent's conduct in collecting dividends was lawful under binding judgments pending appeal. There was no unfair procedure or injustice warranting invocation of inherent jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed (majority); Dissent would have granted application to re-open appeal and adduce new evidence.

Orders

  • Application to re-open appeal and adduce further evidence is dismissed as an abuse of process.