Bonney and Others Vrs Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority [2014] GHASC 170 (29 May 2014)

Bonney and Others Vrs Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority [2014] GHASC 170 (29 May 2014)

The application for review does not disclose any exceptional circumstances or fundamental error that would justify invoking the review jurisdiction. The issues raised, including the constitutionality of section 92(1) of the GPHA Act, were already canvassed and determined by the ordinary bench. The review process cannot be used to re-argue matters already decided by the Supreme Court.

Citation
[2014] GHASC 170
Parties
Plaintiffs/respondents/appellants/applicants: Samuel Bonney & 4,174 Others; Defendant/appellant/respondent/respondent: Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
29 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Review Motion / Supreme Court Review of Prior Supreme Court Ordinary Bench Decision
Outcome
Application for review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Discrimination, Review Jurisdiction, Employment Contracts, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Labour Law Administrative Law Limitation of Actions Discrimination Review Jurisdiction Employment Contracts Statutory Interpretation

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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Bonney & 4,174 Others

Plaintiffs/respondents/appellants/applicants

Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority

Defendant/appellant/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Motion / Supreme Court Review of Prior Supreme Court Ordinary Bench Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 92(1) of the Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority Act, 1986 (PNDCL 160) is unconstitutional for being discriminatory and inconsistent with articles 17(1), 37(1), and 190 of the 1992 Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court's ordinary bench erred in applying section 92(1) to bar the applicants' action as statute barred
  3. 3 Whether the review jurisdiction can be invoked to revisit issues already determined by the Supreme Court

Ratio Decidendi

The application for review does not disclose any exceptional circumstances or fundamental error that would justify invoking the review jurisdiction. The issues raised, including the constitutionality of section 92(1) of the GPHA Act, were already canvassed and determined by the ordinary bench. The review process cannot be used to re-argue matters already decided by the Supreme Court.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed.