The Republic Vrs Hc Accra Ex Parte; Afrifa [2022] GHASC 26 (27 April 2022)

The Republic Vrs Hc Accra Ex Parte; Afrifa [2022] GHASC 26 (27 April 2022)

The application for review failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances or fundamental error by the ordinary bench of the Supreme Court that resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The grounds raised by the applicant related to alleged errors of law and procedure, which are not within the narrow scope of review jurisdiction. The applicant had alternative remedies and failed to meet the threshold for review under Rule 54 of C.I.16.

Citation
The Republic Vrs Hc Accra Ex Parte; Afrifa [2022] GHASC 26 (27 April 2022)
Parties
Applicant/applicant: Kwasi Afrifa Esq.; Interested Party/respondent: Disciplinary Committee of General Legal Council
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
27 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Motion (review Application) / Supreme Court Review of Ordinary Bench Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Review Jurisdiction, Certiorari, Prohibition, Professional Misconduct, Supervisory Jurisdiction, Exceptional Circumstances, Miscarriage of Justice
Source Language
eng
Administrative Law Legal Profession Regulation Judicial Review Review Jurisdiction Certiorari Prohibition Professional Misconduct Supervisory Jurisdiction +2 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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kwasi Afrifa Esq.

Applicant/applicant

Disciplinary Committee of General Legal Council

Interested Party/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Motion (review Application) / Supreme Court Review of Ordinary Bench Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to warrant review of the Supreme Court's ordinary bench decision refusing certiorari and prohibition against the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council.
  2. 2 Whether the charges against the applicant were based on repealed legislation and improper procedure.
  3. 3 Whether the composition of the Disciplinary Committee panel was statutorily flawed.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for review failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances or fundamental error by the ordinary bench of the Supreme Court that resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The grounds raised by the applicant related to alleged errors of law and procedure, which are not within the narrow scope of review jurisdiction. The applicant had alternative remedies and failed to meet the threshold for review under Rule 54 of C.I.16.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed as lacking merit.