The Republic Vrs The High Court, Commercial Division, Accra Ex Parte: Judicial Secretary & 2 Ors [2020] GHASC 88 (26 February 2020)

The Republic Vrs The High Court, Commercial Division, Accra Ex Parte: Judicial Secretary & 2 Ors [2020] GHASC 88 (26 February 2020)

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had jurisdiction to rule on the application for referral and did not exceed its jurisdiction. The applicant's dissatisfaction with the refusal to refer the matter for constitutional interpretation is not a ground for certiorari but for appeal. No genuine issue of constitutional interpretation was raised to warrant referral to the Supreme Court.

Citation
The Republic Vrs The High Court, Commercial Division, Accra Ex Parte: Judicial Secretary & 2 Ors [2020] GHASC 88 (26 February 2020)
Parties
Applicant: The Republic; Applicant: High Court, Commercial Division, Accra (Ex Parte: Judicial Secretary, ASP Nana Justice Oppong); Interested Party: David K. Ametefe
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
26 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Certiorari and Prohibition
Outcome
Application for certiorari and prohibition dismissed
Legal Topics
Supervisory Jurisdiction, Certiorari, Prohibition, Judicial Review, Interpretation of Constitution, Transfer of Cases, Jurisdiction of High Court and Supreme Court
Source Language
eng
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Supervisory Jurisdiction Certiorari Prohibition Judicial Review Interpretation of Constitution +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Republic

Applicant

High Court, Commercial Division, Accra (Ex Parte: Judicial Secretary, ASP Nana Justice Oppong)

Applicant

David K. Ametefe

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Certiorari and Prohibition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing to refer the interpretation of Article 157(3) of the 1992 Constitution to the Supreme Court
  2. 2 Whether the application for certiorari and prohibition is competent where the applicant is aggrieved by a ruling refusing referral for constitutional interpretation

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had jurisdiction to rule on the application for referral and did not exceed its jurisdiction. The applicant's dissatisfaction with the refusal to refer the matter for constitutional interpretation is not a ground for certiorari but for appeal. No genuine issue of constitutional interpretation was raised to warrant referral to the Supreme Court.

Court Disposition

Application for certiorari and prohibition dismissed

Orders

  • Application for certiorari to quash the High Court's ruling is dismissed
  • Application for prohibition against the High Court is dismissed