THE REPUBLIC VRS. HIGH COURT (GENERAL JURISDICTION 8), ACCRA EX PARTE DANIEL OFORI (J5/93/2024) [2025] GHASC 6 (22 January 2025)

THE REPUBLIC VRS. HIGH COURT (GENERAL JURISDICTION 8), ACCRA EX PARTE DANIEL OFORI (J5/93/2024) [2025] GHASC 6 (22 January 2025)

The majority held that the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and grant the application for interlocutory injunction, as its jurisdiction is only curtailed by the Constitution and it may grant injunctions under its rules. The existence of a pending action to set aside the Supreme Court judgment for alleged fraud justified the High Court's consideration of the injunction. No patent error of law or excess of jurisdiction was established to warrant certiorari, and no bias was shown to justify prohibition. The application was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2025] GHASC 6
Parties
Applicant: Daniel Ofori; Interested Party: Ecobank Ghana Limited
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
22 January 2025
Case Number
J5/93/2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Motion (supervisory Jurisdiction Certiorari and Prohibition) / Ruling on Application for Certiorari and Prohibition Against High Court Order
Outcome
Application dismissed (majority); dissent would have allowed application and quashed High Court order.
Legal Topics
Supervisory Jurisdiction, Certiorari, Prohibition, Jurisdiction of High Court, Enforcement of Supreme Court Judgments, Fraud on Judgment, Stay of Execution, Interlocutory Injunctions
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Banking Law Supervisory Jurisdiction Certiorari Prohibition Jurisdiction of High Court Enforcement of Supreme Court Judgments +3 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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Ofori

Applicant

Ecobank Ghana Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Motion (supervisory Jurisdiction Certiorari and Prohibition) / Ruling on Application for Certiorari and Prohibition Against High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining enforcement of a Supreme Court judgment
  2. 2 Whether the High Court could entertain proceedings to set aside a Supreme Court judgment on grounds of fraud
  3. 3 Whether the grant of the injunction amounted to an error of law or excess of jurisdiction justifying certiorari

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and grant the application for interlocutory injunction, as its jurisdiction is only curtailed by the Constitution and it may grant injunctions under its rules. The existence of a pending action to set aside the Supreme Court judgment for alleged fraud justified the High Court's consideration of the injunction. No patent error of law or excess of jurisdiction was established to warrant certiorari, and no bias was shown to justify prohibition. The application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed (majority); dissent would have allowed application and quashed High Court order.