Monday Essay

Management Of Appeals & Expeditious Dismissal Of Frivolous Appeals By The Supreme Court

Introduction

Appeals are not about retrying the facts, but about ensuring that the law was applied correctly and that justice was done.

The Supreme Court of Ghana is the highest judicial authority in the country and accordingly plays a pivotal role in the administration of justice. As the final arbiter in most disputes in Ghana, the Court’s effectiveness in managing appeals is crucial for ensuring that justice is delivered in a timely and efficient manner. However, the Supreme Court’s docket is often clogged with a large number of appeals, many of which may be without merit or filed with the intention of delaying or obstructing the administration of justice. This can lead to significant delays, increased costs of litigants and a waste of valuable judicial resources. The management of appeals is a critical aspect of the Court’s functions requiring a careful consideration of the competing interests of litigants, the need for efficient disposal of cases and the importance of upholding the rule of law. In recent years, there has been growing concern about the increasing number of frivolous appeals filed at the Supreme Court, which undermine the Court’s ability to dispose of cases in a timely manner. Frivolous appeals lack merit and cause significant waste of judicial resources. This essay aims to discuss proposals towards the management of appeals by the Supreme Court. By exploring these issues, this proposal seeks to contribute to the ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Supreme Court.

The general rule regulating the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Ghana

Generally, an appeal lies, only, if given by statute. According to the cases of In re Amponsah [1960] GLR 140 and In re Okine [1960] GLR 84, amongst others, there is no inherent right to appeal since that right is conferred by statute alone. When the statute conferring the right lays down conditions precedent to the vesting of that right in a litigant, it is essential that those conditions must be strictly performed otherwise the right does not become vested. The right to appeal is exercisable only within the framework of the conditions imposed for their exercise. Article 131 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana and Section 4 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) (as amended) provides in detail the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as follows:

  1. An appeal shall lie from a judgment of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court-
  1. as of right, in any civil or criminal cause or matter in respect of which an appeal has been brought to the Court of Appeal from a judgment of the High Court or a Regional Tribunal in its exercise of its original jurisdiction;
  1. with the leave of the Court of Appeal, in any other cause or matter, where the case was commenced in a court lower than the High Court or a Regional Tribunal and where the Court of Appeal is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law or in the public interest;
  1. as of right, in any cause or matter relating to the issue or refusal of writ or order of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or quo warranto (Act 459).
  1. Notwithstanding clause (1) of this article, the Supreme Court may entertain an application for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in any cause or matter, civil or criminal, and may grant leave accordingly.

General powers of the Supreme Court to manage appeals

Section 34 of the Courts Act gives the general power to the Supreme Court to manage appeals by dismissing frivolous appeals. Section 34 provides that:

  1. Where the Supreme Court considers that an appeal made by the Court is frivolous or vexatious or does not show any substantial ground of appeal, the Court may dismiss the appeal summarily without calling on any person to attend the hearing.
  1. Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, an appeal against a conviction in a criminal case may be dismissed summarily under that subsection where the appellant has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on his own plea.

The above highlighted provision empowers the Supreme Court to effectively manage the appellate process before the Supreme Court by ensuring that certain appeals which are deemed frivolous or vexatious or which do not show any substantial ground of appeal as prescribed in the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (CI 16), may be dismissed summarily without a hearing. The Supreme Court can effectively use this power to manage appeals in Ghana if the modalities for the exercise of same are spelt out in detail in rules and regulations made by the Rules of Court Committee pursuant to Article 157(2) of the 1992 Constitution. Also, this can be achieved through specific legislation and statutory amendments. It is respectfully submitted by the author that the effect of the rules and regulations is not to deny a party a right to appeal to the Supreme Court where such right to appeal lies as of right. Rather, the purpose of the rules and regulations made by the Rules of Court Committee and any other statutory basis would be to lay down the conditions precedent for the vesting of that right in a litigant as well as other related matters thus enabling the Supreme Court to effectively manage appeals before it. 

Comparative lessons from the Supreme Court of Norway

According to the Norwegian Constitution of 1814, Article 88 empowers the Supreme Court of Norway to pronounce judgment in the final instance and by so doing serve as the final court of appeal in both criminal and civil matters. The principal role of the Norwegian Supreme Court is to facilitate clarification and development of the law, within the framework of the Constitution, parliamentary statutes and Norway’s obligations under international law. In principle, appeals of all type, including civil and criminal appeals, may be brought before the Supreme Court of Norway. However, the Norwegian Constitution allows that appeals to the Supreme Court are filtered in so far as at least certain pre-conditions are met:

  1. Firstly, the primary purpose of the filtering mechanism must be to promote the Supreme Court’s functioning as a court of precedent – and it must be designed and applied accordingly.
  1. Secondly, the actual filtering is done by the Supreme Court itself and not by some outside body. (Like in the Danish Supreme Court where the decision is granted by a particular independent committee outside the Supreme Court headed by a justice at the Court).

It is believed that this design, of making the Supreme Court itself the final gatekeeper adds a particular quality to the filtering process. Thus, the Supreme Court of Norway decides which cases of those appealed and which legal issues within those cases should ultimately be decided on the merits by the Court. In practice, there is no passage for an appeal (whether interlocutory or substantive) to be decided on the merits by the Supreme Court other than through being granted leave to appeal by the Appeal Selection Committee of the Court. The Supreme Court’s Appeal Selection Committee is part of the Supreme Court and not a separate body and its work and competences are prescribed by law. The Committee also has its own Rules of Procedure established by the Supreme Court itself. Each appeal is filtered by a panel of three (3) of the justices in the Committee and the procedure is wholly written – there are no oral hearings at the filtering stage. The Committee is assisted by a Legal Secretariat consisting of well qualified legal clerks. The main criteria by which the Committee grants leave to appeal is whether the appeal raises issues of importance beyond the present case. This thus refers to the Supreme Court judgment’s effect as precedent. In that regard, it relates to questions of law and not assessment of evidence. One must show that indeed the judgment is grossly mistaken as to law or that there seems to be a fundamental procedural error that could have been a decisive influence on the outcome. 

Thus, the Committee must be convinced that a ruling from the Court will have a substantial and practical value to others than the present parties. Accordingly, the test is whether there is something to gain for the legal system and for the society as a whole. It is not enough to simply argue that the case involves a principled legal issue that ought to be solved. Consequently, the Committee’s function is to either grant leave to appeal or to deny leave to appeal and in such instance state in its decision that the appeal had no prospect of success. A decision not to grant leave to appeal must be unanimous and usually involves an order for the appellant to pay the respondent’s cost connected to the appeal to the Supreme Court. Costs are not awarded where leave is granted and will rather be absorbed by the decision on costs in the ruling of the Supreme Court on the merit. In order to obtain leave to appeal, it suffices that one of the three (3) justices of the Committee approves. This system gives a guarantee against a one-sided referral practice and reduces the risk that the Court accidentally denies leave where leave should have been granted. Furthermore, the Committee may constrain the admission to parts of the appeal so that the case before the Supreme Court is limited to certain claims or aspects of the previous court’s judgment. This allows the Committee to tailor the case and by so doing frame it according to what will provide the most efficient basis for a precedent. Where leave is not granted, there is no need for the Committee to state any reasons for its decision though the Committee would usually give a detailed reason for clarification sake. Usually a decision is rendered within a period of four (4) to six (6) weeks.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the management of appeals and the expeditious dismissal of frivolous appeals are critical to ensuring that the Supreme Court operates efficiently and effectively. By implementing the proposed streamlined processes, merit-based screening and clear guidelines, the Supreme Court of Ghana can reduce delays and improve access to justice. This proposal highlights the importance of effective appeal management and provides recommendations for improving the management of appeals and dismissing frivolous appeals. Section 34 of the Courts Act empowers the Supreme Court of Ghana to regulate and manage appeals before it. Indeed, the Rules of Court Committee may make rules and regulations detailing the modalities for the exercise of the power spelt out in section 34 of the Courts Act. Arguably, the intended reform may be fraught with challenges in that the intended reform would be deemed as curtailing the right of appeal as enshrined in the 1992 Constitution and so it may be argued that a constitutional amendment would be required. However, since the right to appeal is conferred by statute alone, statute law and other rules and regulations may be appropriately used to regulate the right to appeal. Inspiration may be drawn from the Norwegian experience in order to set up an Appeal Selection Committee of the Supreme Court to deal with the filtration of appeals that ought to be heard on the merit and those that ought to be heard summarily by refusing to grant leave for the appeal to be heard on its merits.

God bless!

By Reginald Nii Odoi

Share
Published by
By Reginald Nii Odoi

Recent Posts

Full Bail Ruling: Patricia Asiedua alias Agradaa v The Republic

The applicant herein, Madam Patricia Asiedua alias Nana Agradaa is a pastor and the founder…

16 hours ago

A Plea to a Regional Court, the U.S. Birthright Citizenship Debate Rekindled, and Other Legal Highlights

This week, it emerged that suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo has filed a legal action against the…

2 days ago

Case of the Week: Pearson Education Ltd v Adjei

Morgan Adzei authored Woes of the African Mother, a novel selected by WAEC as a…

5 days ago

The Greater Bar Law Week in JPEG

The Greater Accra Regional Bar’s Maiden Law Week was a remarkable start to a week…

1 week ago

READ THE FULL JUDGEMENT: The Republic Vs Patricia Asiedua alias Nana Agradaa

On 3rd July 2025, a self-styled evangelist, Patricia Asiedua Asiamah, popularly known as Nana Agradaa,…

7 days ago

A Legal Turning Point: Section 115 of the Land Act 2020 Departs from the Essilfie v. Tetteh Case Precedent

The Land Act, Act 1036, represents a significant milestone in Ghana’s land administration and management.…

1 week ago