The Supreme Court has dismissed an Application for Certiorari seeking to quash a High Court judgment delivered against a defendant, BB Boakye, who passed away in 2010 and alleged to have been deceased at the time proceedings commenced.
Delivering its decision on 19 November this year, the Supreme Court coram: Justice Lovelace-Johnson, Justices Tanko Amadu, S.K.A. Asiedu, H. Kwofie, and Y. Darko Asare, noted that the crux of the case rested on the disputed evidence of the Defendant, B.B Aboakye’ death.
The Court found sufficient doubt regarding the death certificate and determined that further findings of fact were required to ascertain the validity of the claim.
In rejecting the Certiorari Application, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had already identified the Defendant’s alleged death as an issue for determination and therefore left it for the Adenta High Court to determine.
The case reaffirms the principle that applications for certiorari will not be granted where sufficient doubt exists about the evidence or where an alternative judicial process is already addressing the issue.
Given the discretionary nature of Certiorari, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no justifiable reason to grant the application.
The application was dismissed, with the Court emphasizing the need for a proper factual inquiry into the matter at the High Court level.
The case, Republic vrs High Court, Adenta, Ex-Parte: Nana Antwi Bosiako, revolved around a judgment rendered on February 20, 2023, against the Defendant, who, according to the Applicant, was deceased 11 years prior to the suit.
Tredstone Empire Limited came into the case as an Interested Party as the company had been granted possession of the land by the Adenta High Court. Nana Antwi Bosiako’s house apparently is next to where the land is located, when the Application for Certiorari.
It would be recalled that the Aggrey family, owners of Blue Jeans Energy Drink took legal action against Dr. Harry Kporn-Dawson, for demolishing a structure belonging to them worth $3m in a prime area at Trassaco in the Greater Accra.
The Aggrey family claimed to have solid legal permit to claim the ownership of the property which belongs to their father, claiming that the demolition was illegal and also threatened to go to the Supreme Court to challenge a High Court ruling that went against them.
Represented by Emmanuel Yeboah Gyan, the Applicant argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to issue the judgment, as legal proceedings against a deceased person are a nullity.
Supporting the application, the Applicant referenced Section 37 of the Evidence Act, contending that the death certificate, obituary, and medical certificate established the Defendant’s death.
Counsel for the Applicant further highlighted procedural irregularities, claiming the Rule 62 of Supreme Court Rules, which formerly restricted such applications to 90 days, had been revoked, granting flexibility for filing.
The Applicant’s legal team submitted that the judgment could not stand, as the Defendant’s death invalidated the proceedings. Additionally, they disputed assertions that the Applicant acted as a “busy body,” arguing that even uninterested parties are entitled to seek relief to ensure justice.
In opposition, J.K. Kofi Asiedu for the Interested Party, along with Ernest Agbesi Normenyo, relied on attached exhibits to challenge the validity of the Defendant’s death.
Citing the case of Ofori vrs Star Assurance Co. Ltd (2015-2016), Asiedu emphasized the need for unequivocal evidence proving the Plaintiff knew of the Defendant’s death at the time the suit commenced.
According to the Interested Party, doubts surrounding the medical certificate and other documentation undermine the Applicant’s case.
