Republic Vrs High Court, (probate and Administration Division) Accra; Ex-parte: Dogbeda and Others [2019] GHASC 26 (29 May 2019)

Republic Vrs High Court, (probate and Administration Division) Accra; Ex-parte: Dogbeda and Others [2019] GHASC 26 (29 May 2019)

The application for certiorari is misconceived because the High Court acted within its jurisdiction in determining the preliminary objection; any alleged error is not patent on the face of the record and is a matter for appeal, not judicial review. The Supreme Court's supervisory jurisdiction was not properly invoked.

Citation
[2019] GHASC 26
Parties
Applicant: Patrick Agudey Teye; Interested Parties/respondents: Nomo Agbosu Dogbeda and 5 others
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
29 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Motion (judicial Review) / Ruling on Application for Certiorari and Prohibition
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Certiorari, Prohibition, Supervisory Jurisdiction, Customary Arbitration, Jurisdictional Error
Source Language
English
Judicial Review Customary Law Arbitration Certiorari Prohibition Supervisory Jurisdiction Customary Arbitration Jurisdictional Error

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Agudey Teye

Applicant

Nomo Agbosu Dogbeda and 5 others

Interested Parties/respondents

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court's supervisory jurisdiction was properly invoked for certiorari to quash the High Court's ruling on a preliminary objection
  2. 2 Whether the High Court acted in excess of jurisdiction by entertaining an application to set aside an arbitral award allegedly brought out of time and under the wrong statutory provision

Ratio Decidendi

The application for certiorari is misconceived because the High Court acted within its jurisdiction in determining the preliminary objection; any alleged error is not patent on the face of the record and is a matter for appeal, not judicial review. The Supreme Court's supervisory jurisdiction was not properly invoked.

Court Disposition

application refused