Ghana Case Law

THE REPUBLIC VRS THE PRESIDENT (CENTRAL REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS) (J7/20/2023)

THE REPUBLIC VRS THE PRESIDENT (CENTRAL REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS) (J7/20/2023) [2024] GHASC 48 (29 October 2024)

Court

ghasc

The omission by the ordinary bench to consider Article 54 of the Standing Orders of the Central Regional House of Chiefs did not amount to an exceptional circumstance or fundamental error resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The applicant participated in the proceedings, the issue was not raised in prior courts, and the Standing Orders are not binding law under Article 11 of the Constitution. The review jurisdiction is not an avenue for re-arguing dismissed appeals or for correcting non-fundamental errors.

Source excerpt

• Judicial review
• Review jurisdiction
• Standing orders of regional house of chiefs
• Committee powers
• Miscarriage of justice

Read case analysis

Expom Ghana Ltd Vrs Vanguard Assurance Co. Ltd

Expom Ghana Ltd Vrs Vanguard Assurance Co. Ltd [2023] GHASC 7 (15 February 2023)

Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court partly granted review and set aside a €400,000 award for debris removal, holding that the renewed insurance policy did not cover that item.

• Insurance contract interpretation
• Quantum of damages
• Review jurisdiction
• Debris removal coverage
• Insurance-law
• Contract-interpretation

Read case analysis

Expom Ghana Limited Vrs Vanguard Assuarance Co. Ltd

Expom Ghana Limited Vrs Vanguard Assuarance Co. Ltd [2023] GHASC 40 (15 February 2023)

Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court partly granted review and set aside a €400,000 debris-removal award, holding that the renewed insurance policy did not cover that item.

• Insurance contract interpretation
• Quantum of damages
• Review jurisdiction
• Insurance-contract-interpretation
• Review-jurisdiction
• Quantum-of-damages

Read case analysis

LOMOTEY & ANOR VRS RICHARDSON & 3 ORS (J7/21/2022)

LOMOTEY & ANOR VRS RICHARDSON & 3 ORS (J7/21/2022) [2023] GHASC 101 (17 January 2023)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

J7/21/2022

The majority held that the Applicants failed to establish exceptional circumstances resulting in a miscarriage of justice as required for review under Article 133 and Rule 54(a) of C.I. 16. Even if there was an error regarding the Co-Defendant's capacity, it did not occasion a miscarriage of justice because the evidence and title would have been resolved in favor of the Numo Kofi Anum family regardless. The Supreme Court was not strictly bound by its previous decision in the Tesa case and was entitled to depart for stated reasons. The Applicants' claims for possessory interests and protection…

Source excerpt

• Capacity to sue
• Review jurisdiction
• Limitation of actions
• Laches and acquiescence
• Fraud on the court
• Possessory interests

Read case analysis

Ofori Vrs Ecobank Ghana Limited 29

Ofori Vrs Ecobank Ghana Limited 29 [2022] GHASC 92 (29 November 2022)

Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed a strike-out application against a review motion, holding the late statement of case was a waivable procedural lapse and not fatal.

• Review jurisdiction
• Procedural compliance
• Waiver of non-compliance
• Filing timelines
• Mistake of counsel
• Jurisdictional invocation

Read case analysis

The Republic Vrs Hc Accra Ex Parte; Afrifa

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

Court

ghasc

The Supreme Court dismissed a review application, holding that the applicant showed no exceptional circumstances or fundamental error to justify review.

• Review jurisdiction
• Certiorari
• Prohibition
• Professional misconduct
• Supervisory jurisdiction
• Exceptional circumstances

Read case analysis

Attah Vrs Republic

Attah Vrs Republic [2022] GHASC 17 (6 April 2022)

Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed an application to review its ruling on substituted service, holding that notice had been sufficient and no miscarriage of justice was shown.

• Substituted service
• Review jurisdiction
• Service of process
• Jurisdiction of supreme court
• Compliance with court orders
• Substituted-service

Read case analysis

Ankomah-nimfah Vrs Quayson & 2 Ors

Ankomah-nimfah Vrs Quayson & 2 Ors [2022] GHASC 24 (5 April 2022)

Court

Supreme Court

The court held that the substituted service was sufficiently effected in accordance with its order, as the primary objective was to bring the proceedings to the applicant's notice, which was achieved through multiple postings and publication. The applicant had actual notice and was represented. Any non-compliance was not fundamental or jurisdictional and did not occasion a miscarriage of justice. The grounds for review did not meet the threshold of exceptional circumstances or fundamental error required for review under Rule 54(a) of CI 16.

Source excerpt

• Substituted service
• Review jurisdiction
• Compliance with court orders
• Jurisdiction
• Due process

Read case analysis

Ankomah-nimfah

Ankomah-nimfah [2022] GHASC 19 (5 April 2022)

Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court found that the applicant was duly served with the processes through the modes ordered, including postings and publication, and that any non-compliance with the order for substituted service was not fundamental, did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and did not warrant review. The court held that the applicant's right to file responses was not prejudiced, and the management of hearing dates did not violate due process or the rules of court. The application for review was therefore dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Substituted service
• Review jurisdiction
• Compliance with court orders
• Original jurisdiction of supreme court

Read case analysis

REPUBLIC VRS. COURT OF APPEAL, CAPE COAST EX PARTE: GYAKYE QUAYSON (J5/17/2022)

REPUBLIC VRS. COURT OF APPEAL, CAPE COAST EX PARTE: GYAKYE QUAYSON (J5/17/2022) [2022] GHASC 133 (9 March 2022)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

J5/17/2022

The application for review failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances or fundamental error resulting in miscarriage of justice; the grounds raised were not within the scope of review jurisdiction but rather matters for appeal or alternative remedies.

Source excerpt

• Review jurisdiction
• Certiorari
• Prohibition
• Miscarriage of justice
• Exceptional circumstances

Read case analysis