Mensah & 3ors Vrs Boakye [2021] GHASC 185 (30 November 2021)

Mensah & 3ors Vrs Boakye [2021] GHASC 185 (30 November 2021)

The applicant failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstance or miscarriage of justice to justify review. The argument that the consent judgment was replaced by the sub-lease was a new issue not raised before the ordinary bench and cannot be entertained on review. The consent judgment remains enforceable, and the application is an attempt to prolong litigation.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 185
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: Most Rev. Dr. Robert A. Mensah; Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: Most Rev. Dr. Joseph Osei Bonsu; Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: Rt. Rev. Daniel Yinkah Sarfo; Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund; Defendant/respondent/appellant/applicant: Yaw Boakye
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
30 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Motion (review Application) / Supreme Court Review of Order Granting Leave to Execute Consent Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Consent Judgments, Review Jurisdiction, Sub Lease Agreements, Default and Remedies
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Property Law Enforcement of Consent Judgments Review Jurisdiction Sub Lease Agreements Default and Remedies

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Most Rev. Dr. Robert A. Mensah

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Most Rev. Dr. Joseph Osei Bonsu

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Rt. Rev. Daniel Yinkah Sarfo

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Edward Osei Boakye Trust Fund

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Yaw Boakye

Defendant/respondent/appellant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Motion (review Application) / Supreme Court Review of Order Granting Leave to Execute Consent Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court erred in granting leave to execute a consent judgment allegedly compromised by a subsequent sub-lease agreement
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated exceptional circumstances justifying review under Rule 54 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I. 16)
  3. 3 Whether the consent judgment ceased to exist upon execution of the sub-lease

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstance or miscarriage of justice to justify review. The argument that the consent judgment was replaced by the sub-lease was a new issue not raised before the ordinary bench and cannot be entertained on review. The consent judgment remains enforceable, and the application is an attempt to prolong litigation.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.