|
RULING
ABBAN C.J
The present application is for the review of a judgment
of this Court delivered on 1st April, 1998. In the
statement of case filed in support of the application a
number of issues were raised most of which were resolved
in the judgment under attack. Learned Counsel for the
applicants seemed to be mostly concerned with the
remarks made in the judgment about the conduct of the
defendants/applicants and their Solicitors.
On
the totality of the evidence and the law applicable in
the matter — P.N.D.C. Law 150, the Justices were
entitled to express themselves in the way they did. One
cannot therefore be grudged them for being forthright in
their condemnation of the illegal nature of both the
original agreement and the Indemnity. The condemnation
is only to bring home to the parties that the laws of
this country cannot be ignored and or undermined.
Having considered the statements of case filed by the
parties, as well as the arguments presented before us
this morning, we have not been able to discover any
exceptional circumstances which could have resulted in
any miscarriage of justice. Neither have we found any
new and important matter which by the exercise of due
diligence could not have been produced at the time when
the decision was given.
All the matters raised were within the knowledge of both
the plaintiffs and the defendants at the time the
litigation was commenced in the High Court; and they
were well ventilated in all the courts which dealt with
the case up to the Supreme Court.
The principles governing the application for review are
well settled and it is not necessary to enumerate the
various authorities which have laid down these
principles and which have also been prescribed in Rule
54 of the Supreme Court Rules 1996 (C.I. 16).
This application did not fulfil the prescribed
conditions. There must be an end to litigation and it
is for the defendants/applicants to abide by the
decision which is the subject of this application
without further delay.
In
the circumstance we are of the view that there is no
merit in the application and it is accordingly dismissed
with costs assessed at four (4) million cedis.
….....……………………………….... I.K. Abban C.J.
…......……………………………….. Joyce Bamford-Addo Mrs. J.S.C.
……………………………….....…. Charles Hayfron-Benjamin J.S.C.
…….....……………………………. A.K. Ampiah J.S.C.
…………………………………....... Adjabeng J.S.C.
…….……………………......………. G.K. Acquah J.S.C.
……………......……………………. W.A. Atuguba J.S.C.
COUNSEL
Mr. Quashie-Idum (with him Mr. Aduama-Osei) for the
Defendants/Applicants.
Mr. Peter Ala Adjetey for the Plaintiffs/Respondents |
