THE REPUBLIC V.HIGH COURT 17, ACCRA – RESPONDENTEX PARTE; THE CHARGE D’AFFAIRES...

THE REPUBLIC
V.
HIGH COURT 17, ACCRA – RESPONDENT

EX PARTE; THE CHARGE D’AFFAIRES BULGARIAN EMBASSY, ACCRA – APPLICANT

INTERESTED PARTY
1.THE LAND TITTLE REGISTRY – INTERESTED PARTIES
2.THE LAND COMMISSION
3. THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
4.THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
5. JOJO HAGAN (ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THEOPHILUS K. LEIGHTON)

Eric Aguda, Esq.

1116
0
SHARE

Time limitations do not apply where decisions sought to be quashed was a nullity

Supreme Court, 24th February, 2016 (Civil Motion: NO.J5/34/2015)

 Coram: ATUGUBA, JSC.  (PRESIDING), ANSAH, JSC., BAFFOE-BONNIE, JSC., BENIN, JSC., PWAMANG, JSC.

 This was an application brought by the Charge D’affaires of the Bulgarian Embassy, Accra, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court praying for an order of certiorari to quash the orders of the High Court, Accra, made on 1st September, 2014 in Suit No. BMISC 995/2014. The 4th and 5th interested parties argued that the Applicant was not a party to the decision complained of and thus lacked locus standi to bring the application certiorari. They also argued that the application for certiorari could not be heard because it was time-barred. The Court, speaking through Pwamang, JSC., with unanimity, among others, held thus:

  1. To the extent that the High Court orders in question were made in excess of its jurisdiction the said orders were “… patently void and time limitations do not apply where the decision sought to be quashed is a nullity as in this case.”
  1. On the facts of this case the applicant is a person who is aggrieved by the impugned decision and therefore had every right to seek to have it quashed. Once a person is aggrieved as being directly affected by a decision, though he may not be a party to the proceedings culminating in the decision, he has standing to apply for this court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to correct the proceedings or quash the decision. [Ex-parte Amponsah [1991] 1 GLR 353, CA, affirmed]

NB: A claim of Diplomatic Immunity under the Diplomatic Immunities Act (1962) Act 148, was also upheld.

NO COMMENTS

LEAVE A REPLY