Republic Vrs High Court, Accra: Exparte Opuni [2023] GHASC 5 (24 January 2023)
The trial judge, Honyenuga JSC, acted within jurisdiction as he was properly granted a six-month extension by the Chief Justice under Article 145(4) to continue proceedings commenced before his retirement. The Chief Justice, not the President, is empowered to grant such extension. There was no breach of natural justice or binding Supreme Court authority, and the facts did not support a finding of bias or lack of jurisdiction.
- Citation
- Republic Vrs High Court, Accra: Exparte Opuni [2023] GHASC 5 (24 January 2023)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stephen Kwabena Opuni; 1st Respondent and 1st Interested Party: Attorney-General; 2nd Interested Party: Seidu Agongo; 3rd Interested Party: Agricult Ghana Ltd.
- Court
- ghasc
- Jurisdiction
- Ghana
- Judgment Date
- 24 January 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Motion (certiorari and Perpetual Injunction) / Supreme Court Ruling on Application
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Certiorari, Perpetual Injunction, Judicial Tenure, Jurisdiction, Natural Justice, Bias, Interpretation of Constitution
- Source Language
- eng
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Stephen Kwabena Opuni
Applicant
Attorney-General
1st Respondent and 1st Interested Party
Seidu Agongo
2nd Interested Party
Agricult Ghana Ltd.
3rd Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Civil Motion (certiorari and Perpetual Injunction) / Supreme Court Ruling on Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge acted without jurisdiction after attaining retirement age under Article 145(2)(a) of the 1992 Constitution
- 2 Whether the trial judge breached Article 129(3) by not following binding Supreme Court decisions
- 3 Whether the trial judge erred in interpreting Articles 139(1)(c) and 145(4) regarding extension of tenure
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge, Honyenuga JSC, acted within jurisdiction as he was properly granted a six-month extension by the Chief Justice under Article 145(4) to continue proceedings commenced before his retirement. The Chief Justice, not the President, is empowered to grant such extension. There was no breach of natural justice or binding Supreme Court authority, and the facts did not support a finding of bias or lack of jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- Application for certiorari to quash the High Court ruling is dismissed.
- Application for perpetual injunction to restrain the trial judge is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment