Quist Vrs Danawi [2015] GHASC 105 (5 November 2015)

Quist Vrs Danawi [2015] GHASC 105 (5 November 2015)

The applicant failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances or miscarriage of justice to warrant review. The issue of waiver was sufficiently raised by the pleadings and evidence, and the Supreme Court was within its jurisdiction to address it. The review application is an impermissible attempt to re-argue the appeal and does not meet the threshold for review jurisdiction.

Citation
[2015] GHASC 105
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant/applicant: Charles Lawrence Quist (substituted by Diana Quist); Defendant/appellant/respondent/respondent: Ahmed Danawi
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
5 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Review Motion / Supreme Court Review of Supreme Court Ordinary Bench Decision
Outcome
Review application dismissed
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Lease, Waiver, Relief Against Forfeiture, Review Jurisdiction, Finality of Judgments
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Forfeiture of Lease Waiver Relief Against Forfeiture Review Jurisdiction Finality of Judgments

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Lawrence Quist (substituted by Diana Quist)

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant/applicant

Ahmed Danawi

Defendant/appellant/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court erred in raising and deciding the issue of waiver of forfeiture when it was not pleaded as a defence
  2. 2 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to warrant review of the Supreme Court's ordinary bench decision
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was denied a fair hearing on the issue of waiver

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances or miscarriage of justice to warrant review. The issue of waiver was sufficiently raised by the pleadings and evidence, and the Supreme Court was within its jurisdiction to address it. The review application is an impermissible attempt to re-argue the appeal and does not meet the threshold for review jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed