THE REPUBLIC VRS THE PRESIDENT (CENTRAL REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS) (J7/20/2023) [2024] GHASC 48 (29 October 2024)

THE REPUBLIC VRS THE PRESIDENT (CENTRAL REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS) (J7/20/2023) [2024] GHASC 48 (29 October 2024)

The omission by the ordinary bench to consider Article 54 of the Standing Orders of the Central Regional House of Chiefs did not amount to an exceptional circumstance or fundamental error resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The applicant participated in the proceedings, the issue was not raised in prior courts, and the Standing Orders are not binding law under Article 11 of the Constitution. The review jurisdiction is not an avenue for re-arguing dismissed appeals or for correcting non-fundamental errors.

Citation
THE REPUBLIC VRS THE PRESIDENT (CENTRAL REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS) (J7/20/2023) [2024] GHASC 48 (29 October 2024)
Parties
Applicant/respondent/respondent/applicant: Obrempong Nyanful Krampah XI; 1st Respondent/appellant/appellant/respondent: The President (Central Regional House of Chiefs); 2nd Respondent/appellant/appellant/respondent: The President (National House of Chiefs); Interested Party/appellant/appellant/respondent: Nana Ogyeedom Obranu Kwesi Atta VI
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
29 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Motion (review) / Supreme Court Review of Supreme Court Ordinary Bench Decision
Outcome
Application for review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Review Jurisdiction, Standing Orders of Regional House of Chiefs, Committee Powers, Miscarriage of Justice
Source Language
eng
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Chieftaincy Law Judicial Review Review Jurisdiction Standing Orders of Regional House of Chiefs Committee Powers Miscarriage of Justice

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

Obrempong Nyanful Krampah XI

Applicant/respondent/respondent/applicant

The President (Central Regional House of Chiefs)

1st Respondent/appellant/appellant/respondent

The President (National House of Chiefs)

2nd Respondent/appellant/appellant/respondent

Nana Ogyeedom Obranu Kwesi Atta VI

Interested Party/appellant/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Motion (review) / Supreme Court Review of Supreme Court Ordinary Bench Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court ordinary bench erred by not holding that only the Standing Committee of the Central Regional House of Chiefs had jurisdiction to consider referrals under Article 54 of the Standing Orders
  2. 2 Whether the omission to consider Article 54 of the Standing Orders resulted in a miscarriage of justice justifying review under Rule 54 of CI.16

Ratio Decidendi

The omission by the ordinary bench to consider Article 54 of the Standing Orders of the Central Regional House of Chiefs did not amount to an exceptional circumstance or fundamental error resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The applicant participated in the proceedings, the issue was not raised in prior courts, and the Standing Orders are not binding law under Article 11 of the Constitution. The review jurisdiction is not an avenue for re-arguing dismissed appeals or for correcting non-fundamental errors.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed.