GhanaFA

  • Home
  • News
  • Dwarfs' application for review in case against King Faisal dismissed

Dwarfs' application for review in case against King Faisal dismissed

6 years ago
Advertisement

Cape Coast Ebusua Dwarfs’ application for a review of the decision of the Appeals Committee’s decision delivered on 16th April, 2015 has been dismissed.

In its decision, the Appeals Committee overturned the decision of the Disciplinary Committee which declared King Faisal as having forfeited their GN Bank Division One League match against Dwarfs to have been played on 21st February, 2015 for their failure to provide adequate security at the match venue.

The application for review have however failed after the Appeals Committee delivered its decision on 25th June, 2015.

DECISION 1. This is an application for review of the decision of the Appeals Committee (AC) dated 16th April, 2015 by which the AC overturned the decision of the Disciplinary Committee (DC). The DC decision declared the respondents as having forfeited their GN Bank Division One League match to have been played with the applicants on 21st February, 2015 for the respondents’ failure to provide adequate security at the match venue contrary to articles 10(1) and (2) of the Division One Special Regulations.

2. The AC has in a plethora of cases stated the legal position regarding its review jurisdiction. In the caase of Tano Bofoakwa FC V. B.A. United FC dated 2nd May, 2014 and cited with approval in the decision of the review application of Accra Hearts of Oak vrs. David Duncan dated 6th June, 2014, the AC expressed itself as follows:

“It is instructive to note that it is well settled principle of law that the review jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction and is not intended to provide an opportunity for further appeal.

That jurisdiction could be exercised when an applicant had succeeded in convincing the court that there had been some fundamental or basic error which the court inadvertently committed in the course of delivering the judgment; and that error had resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Besides, the jurisdiction could be successfully invoked upon the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced by the applicant at the time when the decision was given.

Merely disagreeing with a decision, or merely re-stating one’s initial arguments will never be enough justification for granting an application for review”.

See also: Adamu Dramani (No.2) v. Sumaila Bielbiel & Attorney General (No.2) (2011) 2 SCGLR 853 (S.C) - Tetteh Tsure III (No.2) v. Attorney General (No.2) (2011) 2 SCGLR 1042 (S.C)

3. In the instant case, it is our view that the application is devoid of any ground to warrant a review of our earlier decision in favour of the applicants. It has not been positively established in this application that fundamental or basic error was inadvertently committed in the course of delivering our judgement on appeal and that the error had resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Moreover, no new and important matter or evidence which could not have been discovered with diligent effort has now been discovered by the applicants.

4. It is our view that the letter from the Asante Regional Police Command explaining the reason for their inability to make available the number of police personnel requested for by the respondents was appropriately considered by the AC in the course of its decision. The said letter could not have been obtained at the time of delivery of the decision of the DC even with diligent effort because it was then non-existent. Besides, the letter was very important in determining the liability of the respondents relating to the lack of adequate security at the match venue.

5. In the premises, we find the instant application as constituting a further appeal as it seeks to re-state the initial arguments on appeal. Consequently, we hereby decline the invitation to review our earlier decision. The application therefore fails and same is dismissed. 6. No costs is awarded.