Ablakwa and Another Vrs Attorney General and Another [2013] GHASC 143 (23 January 2013)

Ablakwa and Another Vrs Attorney General and Another [2013] GHASC 143 (23 January 2013)

The applicants failed to establish exceptional circumstances or a fundamental error of law as required for review. The Supreme Court's adherence to its previous unchallenged decision does not constitute error. The application was unmeritorious and dismissed.

Citation
[2013] GHASC 143
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa; Plaintiff/applicant: Dr. Edward Kofi Omane Boamah; 1st Defendant/respondent: The Attorney-General; 2nd Defendant/respondent: Hon. Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
23 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Review Motion / Ruling on Application for Review of Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Review Jurisdiction, Finality of Supreme Court Decisions, Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions, Public Property, Exceptional Circumstances
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Review Jurisdiction Finality of Supreme Court Decisions Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions Public Property Exceptional Circumstances

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

Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa

Plaintiff/applicant

Dr. Edward Kofi Omane Boamah

Plaintiff/applicant

The Attorney-General

1st Defendant/respondent

Hon. Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey

2nd Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Motion / Ruling on Application for Review of Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to warrant review of the Supreme Court's judgment
  2. 2 Whether there was a fundamental error in the interpretation and enforcement of Article 20(5) & (6) of the Constitution
  3. 3 Whether the Supreme Court should depart from its previous decision in Nii Kpobi Tetteh Tsuru III v Attorney-General

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish exceptional circumstances or a fundamental error of law as required for review. The Supreme Court's adherence to its previous unchallenged decision does not constitute error. The application was unmeritorious and dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed