Kobina Osumanu V. Kofi Amadu & Ors (1949)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Practice of West African Court of Appeal regarding its own previous decisions.

The West African Court of Appeal is bound to follow previous decisions of its own as well as those of Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, except in the three instances specified in the judgment.

Cases referred to:

1. Dompreh v. Marfo, 12 W .A.C.A. 349.
2. Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Lid. (1944), K.B. 718; (1944), 2 A .E.R. 293; 113 L.J.K.B. 513; 171 L.T. 113; 60 T.L.R. 536; 88 Sol. Jo. 332.
3. Velasquez Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners (1914), 3 K.B. 458; 83 L.J.K.B. 1108; 111 L.T. 417; 30 T.L.R. 539; 58 Sol. Jo. 554.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast.

Tamakloe for Appellant (defendant below).

Asafu-Adjaye for Respondents (plaintiffs below).

The following judgment was delivered:

Blackall, P. The Court dismissed this appeal on the 28th January, 1949, intimating that we would give our reasons in writing later.

The appellant sought to appeal from a decision of the Chief Commissioner’s Court of Ashanti upholding the decision of the Magistrate’s Court, Kumasi. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondent that the appeal did not lie in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Domprehv. Marfo (1).

Mr. Tamakloe, for the appellant, c,onceded that his only chance of succeeding lay in satisfying us that the case cited was wrongly decided and he wished to argue that this Court was not bound to follow it. In view, however, of the principle laid down in Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. (2) we considered that no useful purpose would be served by his doing so as this Court is bound to follow previous decisions of its own. This principle was stated in Velasquez Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners (3) in the following terms by Lord Cozens-Hardy, M.R. :—

” But there is one rule by which, of course, we are bound to abide—that when there has been a decision of this Court upon a question of principle it is not right for this Court, whatever its own views may be, to depart from that decision. There would otherwise be no finality in the law. If it is contended that the decision is wrong, then the proper course is to go to the ultimate tribunal, the House of Lords, who have power to settle the law and hold that the decision which is binding upon us is not good law.”

This and other cases were discussed in Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. (2), and the position, so far as this Court is concerned, is that it is bound to follow previous decisions of its own, as well as those of Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction. The only exceptions to this rule (two of them apparent only) may thus be summarised:

1. The Court is entitled and bound to decide which of two conflicting decisions of its own it will follow.
2. The Court is bound to refuse to follow a decision of its own which, though not expressly overruled, cannot, in its opinion, stand with a
3. decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council or the House of Lords.
4. (iii) The Court is not bound to follow a decision of its own if it is satisfied that the decision was given per ineuriam.

Appeal dismissed.