Cookie Policy
RULING
PWAMANG JSC:
The plaintiff/respondent/respondent/applicant, hereinafter to be referred to as “the applicant”, has applied to the court to review the judgment of the ordinary bench dated 12th November, 2025. We have read closely the processes filed by the applicant as well as by the 1st defendant/appellant/ appellant/respondent, hereinafter to be referred to as “the respondent”, and we have listened attentively to the lawyers of the parties argue their respective cases.
The applicant’s Counsel has argued strenuously, that the ordinary bench ought not to have given judgment in favour of the respondent. But, the Counsel for the respondent is right when he said that all the matters raised by Counsel for the applicant are a re-argument of the appeal and do not disclose any exceptional circumstances resulting in miscarriage of justice. See the case of Michael Odai Lomotey & Anor v Richardson & 3 Ors [2024] 187 Vol. 1 GMJ 1.
However, at paragraph 27 o…