Republic Vrs High Court, Human Right Division - Ex Parte: Naa Otua Swayne [2015] GHASC 146 (19 February 2015)

Republic Vrs High Court, Human Right Division - Ex Parte: Naa Otua Swayne [2015] GHASC 146 (19 February 2015)

The High Court, Human Rights Division, exceeded its jurisdiction by quashing the Circuit Court proceedings and prohibiting further hearing solely on the basis of alleged breach of fundamental human rights, without any legal or jurisdictional error apparent on the record. The applicant, as complainant, had sufficient interest to bring the application. Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for appeal.

Citation
[2015] GHASC 146
Parties
Applicant: Naa Otua Swayne; 1st Interested Party: Prince Kofi Amoabeng; Interested Party: UT Bank Limited; Interested Party: The Attorney-General; Interested Party: DSP Aidan Dery; Interested Party: The Registrar, Circuit Court, Cocoa Affairs, Accra
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
19 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Motion (certiorari) / Ruling on Application for Certiorari and Prohibition
Outcome
Application for certiorari granted; High Court ruling quashed; costs awarded against 1st interested party's counsel.
Legal Topics
Certiorari, Prohibition, Locus Standi, Supervisory Jurisdiction, Fundamental Human Rights
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Certiorari Prohibition Locus Standi Supervisory Jurisdiction Fundamental Human Rights

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Naa Otua Swayne

Applicant

Prince Kofi Amoabeng

1st Interested Party

UT Bank Limited

Interested Party

The Attorney-General

Interested Party

DSP Aidan Dery

Interested Party

The Registrar, Circuit Court, Cocoa Affairs, Accra

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Motion (certiorari) / Ruling on Application for Certiorari and Prohibition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court, Human Rights Division, exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the Circuit Court proceedings and prohibiting further hearing of the criminal case
  2. 2 Whether the applicant (complainant) had locus standi to invoke the Supreme Court's supervisory jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the High Court's intervention was justified on grounds of alleged breach of fundamental human rights

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court, Human Rights Division, exceeded its jurisdiction by quashing the Circuit Court proceedings and prohibiting further hearing solely on the basis of alleged breach of fundamental human rights, without any legal or jurisdictional error apparent on the record. The applicant, as complainant, had sufficient interest to bring the application. Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for certiorari granted; High Court ruling quashed; costs awarded against 1st interested party's counsel.

Orders

  • The proceedings and judgment of the High Court, Human Rights Division, Coram: Kofi Essel Mensah J, in suit No. HRCM 167/14 dated 20th October, 2014 are quashed by order of Certiorari.
  • The High Court, Human Rights Division, is prohibited from further involvement in the suit and from interfering with the prosecution of the criminal trial at the Circuit Court, Accra, case No. D6/278/12.