Tema Youth’s application for a review of the GFA Appeals Committee’s ruling on their case against Dreams FC has been dismissed.
Below is the full decision:
Tema Youth FC –Applicants VRS Dreams FC - Respondents
CORAM 1. Mr. Emmanuel Effah Annan – Chairman 2. Alhaji Farouck Seidu - Vice Chairman 3. Mr. Kwame Takyi - Member 4. Alhaji Seidu Salifu - Member 5. Mr. Divine Kwaku Sunu - Member 6. Mr. Vincent Ebo Aikins - Member 7. Mr. Claude Oppong - Member 8. Mr. Daniel Oduro - Secretary
Representation The parties presented their submissions on the appropriate forms from the Ghana Football Association.
DECISION 1. This is an application for review of the Appeals Committee’s (AC’s) decision dated 11th September, 2015 which upheld the Disciplinary Committee’s (DC’s) decision concerning the eligibility of two players of the respondents who featured in the GN Bank Division One League match day 24 game played between the parties herein at Kweiman park.
2. The applicants’ case was that the respondents were involved in fraudulent deals or acts in the process of registration of those players thereby making the players unqualified to play in that match.
3. The DC found that there was no evidence adduced by the applicants in support of their allegation of fraud and consequently dismissed the protest, which decision was upheld by the AC. It is against this decision that the instant application for review has been initiated.
4. We deem it appropriate to state the legal position regarding the review jurisdiction of the AC. In the decision of the AC in the case of Tano Bofoakwa FC versus B.A. United FC dated 2nd May, 2014, the AC expressed itself as follows;
“It is instructive to note that it is a well settled principle of law that review jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction and is not intended to provide an opportunity for further appeal.
That jurisdiction could be exercises 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 judgement; 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;- Accra Hearts of Oak S.C versus David Duncan ((Appeals Committee decision on review application dated 6th June, 2014).
- 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)
5. In the instant case, it has not been demonstrated before us by the applicants that there had been some fundamental or basic error which the AC inadvertently committed in the cause of delivering its earlier decision and that error had occasioned a miscarriage of justice. Neither have the applicants shown that they discovered any new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence could not be obtained or discovered by them.
6. In fact, upon careful examination of the record before us, we have no difficulty in concluding that the instant application constitutes nothing but a further appeal by which the applicants have canvassed previous arguments which were considered by the AC in delivering its earlier decision. We find the conditions precedent for a successful invocation of the review jurisdiction non-existent in this case.
7. In the result, we shall decline the invitation by the applicants to review our earlier decision. Accordingly, the application fails and same is hereby dismissed.
8. No costs is awarded.
EMMANUEL EFFAH ANNAN CHAIRMAN