LAW TIPS
Judicial review only checks if a decision was made using the right procedure, not whether the decision itself was correct. To challenge the correctness of a decision, you must file an appeal.
QUOTE FROM JUDGEMENT
“It would be observed from the above grounds settled by the authorities that, the conditions for judicial review, are procedurally focused. A writ or order of certiorari is only limited to the procedure by which a decision is made, and not the rightness, or wrongfulness of the substantive decision. It is therefore not available to test the merits of a decision. That avenue is by way of an appeal. What this simply means is that, when a court of law is seised with a matter in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, the court’s focus is strictly on the grounds of the review, which does not entail an examination and determination of the merits of the impugned decision but only the procedure by which the decision was arrived at.” THE REPUBLIC VRS. HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) ;EX PARTE: KEVIN EKOW TAYLOR [ATTORNEY-GENERAL (INTERESTED PARTY)] CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/80/2025 22ND JULY 2025
LAW TIP
In this case, the Supreme court granted the certiorari application after finding the arrest warrant was issued without due process, lacking jurisdiction, and breaching natural justice, thus making the order for arrest void.
QUOTE FROM JUDGEMENT
“Be that as it may, the absence of any opposition to an application has never resulted in an automatic success of the application. Courts are still under a duty to evaluate the merits of any application in the context of the applicable law and the available evidence in order to make a determination. That was what the majority in the instant application did on the 22nd day of July, 2025 when the application was argued by the Applicant’s counsel and same was granted having found that the procedure adopted by the trial high court in issuing the warrant of arrest was without due process of law on the ingredients of want of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice, the combination of which resulted in a nullity of the impugned order.” THE REPUBLIC VRS. HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) ;EX PARTE: KEVIN EKOW TAYLOR [ATTORNEY-GENERAL (INTERESTED PARTY)] CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/80/2025 22ND JULY 2025
LAW TIP
Even if an application is unopposed, the court must still examine the applicable law and evidence before deciding whether to grant it.
QUOTE FROM JUDGEMENT
“Be that as it may, the absence of any opposition to an application has never resulted in an automatic success of the application. Courts are still under a duty to evaluate the merits of any application in the context of the applicable law and the available evidence in order to make a determination.” THE REPUBLIC VRS. HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) ;EX PARTE: KEVIN EKOW TAYLOR [ATTORNEY-GENERAL (INTERESTED PARTY)] CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/80/2025 22ND JULY 2025
LAW TIP
An opponent to a court application is not obliged to file an affidavit in opposition; they may challenge the application solely on legal grounds through oral argument. REP v HIGH COURT; EX PARTE KEVIN EKOW TAYLOR (J5/80/2025) (22/7/2025)
Failing to file an affidavit in opposition means the opponent is deemed to admit the facts stated by the applicant, but this does not entitle the applicant to an automatic grant of their request. REP v HIGH COURT; EX PARTE KEVIN EKOW TAYLOR (J5/80/2025) (22/7/2025)
QUOTE FROM JUDGEMENT
“It is trite legal knowledge that, there is no statutory obligation on an opponent to an application to file an affidavit in opposition. Indeed, an application may be opposed without the necessity of filing any formal affidavit in opposition in answer, especially, when the basis of the opposition are legal points, which can be raised by oral submission in court. As held by this court in REPUBLIC VS. COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA; EX-PARTE TSATSU TSIKATA [2005-2006] SCGLR 614: “An opponent who does not file any affidavit in opposition to the Applicant’s affidavit is only deemed to have admitted the facts contained therein. Furthermore, the default does not debar him or her from arguing the matters in connection thereto on points of law, for an Applicant is under such circumstances not entitled to an automatic grant of the prayer on the sole basis that the facts are undisputed.” THE REPUBLIC VRS. HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) ;EX PARTE: KEVIN EKOW TAYLOR [ATTORNEY-GENERAL (INTERESTED PARTY)] CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/80/2025 22ND JULY 2025