Absa Bank Ghana Limited Vrs Charles Nyarko [2023] GHAHC 306 (31 July 2023)

Key Facts

Transaction Type

Issues

• The parties disputed the interpretation of Rule 2 of C.I. 52, which governs interest on judgment debts. The Plaintiff argued the Supreme Court erred by calculating interest from the breach date (2011) instead of the 2017 judgment date. The court clarified that Rule 2 defines the interest rate and start date for judgment debts, not breach-related damages, and the Supreme Court's interpretation was lawful.
• The Plaintiff claimed the Supreme Court's order violated C.I. 52 by misapplying the interest calculation period. The court rejected this, noting that procedural rules like C.I. 52 cannot override substantive legal decisions, and the Supreme Court's order was valid unless it was void ab initio due to a jurisdictional error, which was not established.
• The central issue was whether the High Court could set aside the Supreme Court's post-judgment interest calculation order, arguing it contravened C.I. 52. The court held that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to review or set aside a valid Supreme Court decision, as jurisdiction is defined by law and procedural rules like C.I. 52 do not confer substantive jurisdiction.

Holdings

• The court dismissed the Plaintiff's application for want of jurisdiction, ruling that the High Court cannot set aside a Supreme Court decision unless it is void or in breach of a statute. The court emphasized that the Supreme Court's rulings are binding on lower courts under Article 129 of the 1992 Constitution, and the Plaintiff's remedy was to seek a review of the Supreme Court's decision, not initiate a fresh action.
• The court awarded costs of GHc10,000 in favor of the Defendant, as the Plaintiff's action was deemed an abuse of process and out of time to seek a review of the Supreme Court's 2021 judgment.

Remedies

• Cost of GHc10,000 was awarded against the Plaintiff in Defendant's favour.
• The court dismissed the instant suit for want of jurisdiction for reasons canvassed in the ruling.

Monetary Damages

Legal Principles

• The ruling emphasized the separation of powers by distinguishing procedural rules (C.I. 52) from substantive legislation, noting that procedural rules regulate court practice but do not confer jurisdiction, which remains a matter for Parliament.
• The court considered the grounds for judicial review under Article 129(3), including per incuriam decisions and exceptional circumstances, concluding that the Plaintiff's failure to seek review within the required timeframe barred their current action.
• The court applied the principle of Res Judicata, holding that lower courts are bound by the Supreme Court's decisions on questions of law and cannot review or set aside such decisions unless a valid review application is made under the Constitution.

Precedent Name

• Doley v Messrs. FNS Investment Ghana Limited & Anor
• Republic v High Court, Accra; Ex-parte: Kodjo Anku & Others (Daniel Danso - Interested Party)
• Otutu Kone III
• Mosi v Bagyina
• Network Computer System Limited v Intelsat Global Sales and Marketing Limited
• Naos Holding Incorporated v Ghana Commercial Bank Limited
• Nasali v. Addy
• Akrofa Krokoko
• Irene Tetteh Enyo v Electricity Company of Ghana Ltd
• Ababio v. Mensah (No. 2)
• Ogyeadom Obranu Kwesi Atta VI v Ghana Telecommunications Co. Ltd & Another
• Republic (No. 1) v High Court, Commercial Division, Kumasi; Ex-parte: First Atlantic Bank Limited (Agyei Baffour & Sons Ltd; Agyei & Oppong Interested Parties) No. 1
• Bisi v. Kwayie
• Awutu Ellis Kaati & others v The Republic
• Mechanical Lloyd Assembly Plant Ltd. v. Narley
• Michael Ankomah-Nimfah v. James Gyakye Quayson & 2 Others

Cited Statute

• 1992 Constitution of Ghana
• Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459)
• Court (Award of Interest and Post Judgment Interest) Rules, 2005 (C.I. 52)
• Court (Award of Interest and Post Judgment Interest) Rules, 2005 (C.I. 47)

Judge Name

Passage Text

• Under Article 129 (3) of the 1992 Constitution, all other Courts are bound to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court on questions of law and it is the same Supreme Court that can depart from its previous decision when it appears to it right to do so.
• The Plaintiff could have gone under d of the just quoted Supreme Court case and applied to the Supreme Court in 2021 but not sleep on it oars until 2023 to file a fresh writ when he clearly has no cause of action against the Defendant herein.
• After a careful reading of the Defendants' motion paper and supporting affidavit... I hereby set aside the writ and dismiss the instant suit for want of jurisdiction for reasons canvassed in this ruling.

Damages / Relief Type

• General Damages of GH¢180,000 for Breach of Contract
• Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendant from calculating interest on GH¢180,000 from 1st October 2011 to final payment
• Declaration that the Supreme Court's order (c) calculating interest from 1st October 2011 is void or a nullity under C.I. 52