John Ajet-Nasam Esq.
PREFACE.
On October 14, 2026, I was at the Supreme Court when Republic v. High Court (Criminal Division 4); Ex parte Solomon Asamoah (Interested Parties: Attorney-General and Her Ladyship Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay), Suit No. J5/07/2026, was called. During the proceedings, counsel for the Applicant apologised to the Court and explained that the inclusion of the learned trial judge as a party had been an error.
As counsel argued the motion, Pwamang JSC and Asiedu JSC posed a question that stayed with me long after I left the Court: is it proper to challenge two orders made on different dates in a single application for certiorari?
I researched the question and found two decisions particularly instructive: Republic v. High Court (Commercial Division), Accra; Ex parte Attorney-General (Zenith Bank, Interested Party) [2018–2019] 1 GLR 825, and Best Assurance Company Ltd v. Alhaji Mohammed Abass (Civil Appeal No. H1/34/2022), delivered on 28 July 2022. They should be distinguished at the outset. The question before the Supreme Court concerned two orders of the same High Court, to which the reasoning in Best Assurance is relevant. Ex parte Attorney-General, by contrast, concerned two decisions made by different judges and challenged in a single motion.
The central lesson is that an application for certiorari must satisfy the applicable requirements on grounds, time limits and discretionary considerations. Combining several orders in one application invites objections to its competence and may jeopardise the relief sought. In appropriate cases, a separate application for each impugned order is the more prudent course.
- INTRODUCTION
Litigation in Ghana may produce several orders in the same proceedings. A court may grant an interim injunction, refuse to set it aside, and later decline a stay of proceedings. A dissatisfied party may invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of either the Supreme Court or the High Court by applying for certiorari to bring up and quash the order. Certiorari is a prerogative remedy directed at a particular judicial or quasi-judicial decision, and it is available only on recognised grounds. Each decision must therefore be assessed on its own merits and against the applicable procedural requirements. That several orders arise from the same proceedings does not mean they should be challenged together.
This article argues that practitioners should consider a separate application for each impugned order, particularly where the orders differ in date, procedural circumstances, grounds of challenge or available remedies.
- LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION
- Constitutional source
Article 132 of the 1992 Constitution confers on the Supreme Court supervisory jurisdiction over all courts and adjudicating authorities in Ghana. The Court may issue certiorari, habeas corpus, quo warranto mandamus and prohibition, together with any orders and directions needed to enforce its supervisory powers. Article 141 similarly confers supervisory jurisdiction on the High Court over lower courts and adjudicating authorities.
Three points follow. First, supervisory jurisdiction is a distinct jurisdiction vested in specified courts. Secondly, it is not appellate. Thirdly, it concerns a particular exercise of judicial or adjudicative power, namely the decision or order complained of. These points govern the choice of remedy and the way an application should be framed.
- Procedural rules
Applications invoking the Supreme Court’s supervisory jurisdiction are governed by Part VI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I. 16). The application is made by motion on notice, supported by an affidavit, and must be accompanied by the record or order complained of as well as a statement of case. It must also be filed within the prescribed ninety (90) day period.
At the High Court, applications for judicial review against lower courts and tribunals are governed by Order 55 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), subject, to a six-month limitation period.
Under both regimes, the question is not whether the Applicant is dissatisfied with a decision. It is whether the application identifies the precise decision challenged, establishes a legal basis for intervention and complies with the time limit.
III. CHOOSING BETWEEN AN APPEAL AND SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION
An appeal and the supervisory jurisdiction of either the Supreme Court or the High Court serve different purposes. An appeal asks a higher court to decide whether a decision was wrong. When an applicant invokes the supervisory jurisdiction, the Applicant may pray for specific remedies such as Certiorari (to quash the decision), prohibition (to prevent), mandamus (to compel the doing of an act by an official), habeas corpus (for the production of a body), quo warranto (to question the power of a person acting in a position). The Court, in granting or refusing the prayer may issue Orders or directives. For the purpose of this article, I will be restricted to certiorari. Where the complaint is an error made by a court acting within its jurisdiction, the remedy is ordinarily an appeal. Where the complaint is an absence or excess of jurisdiction, a breach of natural justice or another recognised ground, certiorari may be available.
An appeal is a creature of statute. The legislation determines whether a right of appeal exists, the court to which it lies, the time within which it must be brought and whether leave is required. The appellate court may then correct errors of fact or law, and reverse, vary or otherwise deal with the decision.
Certiorari is narrower. It is not another opportunity to argue the merits because a party considers a decision erroneous. The recognised grounds are:
- Want or excess of jurisdiction: the court or adjudicative body lacked authority to act or exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction.
- Breach of natural justice: for example, a party was denied a fair hearing, or the decision-maker was disqualified by bias.
- Error of law on the face of the record: the error is apparent from the record and meets the threshold for certiorari.
Certiorari is not ordinarily a substitute for an appeal. Where an adequate appellate remedy exists, the supervisory court will generally consider whether it should be pursued instead. A fundamental jurisdictional defect or a serious denial of a fair hearing may nonetheless justify intervention.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed this distinction. In Republic v. Court of Appeal; Ex parte Tsatsu Tsikata [2005–2006] SCGLR 612, Wood JSC (as she then was) emphasised that the error must be sufficiently fundamental, jurisdictional or patent on the face of the record. Republic v. High Court (Fast Track Division), Accra; Ex parte State Housing Co. Ltd (No. 2) (Koranten-Amoako, Interested Party) [2009] SCGLR 185 reinforces the point that an error of law, however serious, does not by itself justify certiorari unless it meets the threshold for supervisory intervention.
The nature of the alleged error thus determines the remedy. A party aggrieved by several orders must assess each one separately before deciding whether to appeal, apply for certiorari or pursue another remedy.
- THE RISKS OF A COMPOSITE APPLICATION
Each impugned order may present a different legal problem. Order A may be challenged for want of jurisdiction. Order B may involve an error of law within jurisdiction, for which an appeal is the proper remedy. Order C may involve a denial of hearing. These complaints are not interchangeable and may require different evidence, arguments and procedural steps.
When such orders are combined, the supporting affidavit and statement of case can become a general account of dissatisfaction rather than a focused demonstration of the defect affecting each order. The Respondent may then argue that the Applicant is using supervisory jurisdiction to reopen the entire proceedings. A weak or defective challenge to one order may also complicate the consideration of a stronger challenge to another.
These difficulties do not make every application challenging multiple orders incompetent. They do show why the question deserves careful attention before filing. Four (4) risks stand out.
- Time
Where orders are made on different dates, the time for challenging each may run from a different date. Suppose one order is made in January, another in May, and the application is filed in September. The application may be in time for the May order but out of time for the January order. The Respondent may object, and the Court must then decide whether the competent challenge can be separated from the one that is out of time. The difficulty is greater where the application rests on a single, indivisible prayer for relief. Where the circumstances warrant it, the safer course is a separate application for each order, each filed within the prescribed period.
- The Record
Certiorari depends substantially on the record. The Applicant must place before the Court the relevant process, order or ruling and the parts of the proceedings that show the alleged defect. The Court examines the record to decide whether the error meets the threshold for intervention; the Applicant’s own description of the decision is not enough.
Where two orders are challenged together, the records and the circumstances leading to each order may differ, making it harder to isolate the defect in each. A composite application also gives the Respondent room to argue that the Applicant is inviting the Court to revisit the merits or re-evaluate facts, matters that belong to an appeal. A focused application directed at one clearly identified order presents the record and the basis for intervention more cleanly.
- Alternative Remedies
The availability of an adequate alternative remedy, particularly an appeal, is a key consideration. Depending on the statute, an interlocutory order may be appealable as of right or with leave. Where two orders are challenged together, one may properly be the subject of an appeal while the other raises a question suitable for a supervisory review. Joining them invites the objection that supervisory jurisdiction is being used to obtain relief that belongs in an appeal.
Counsel must also avoid pursuing appellate and supervisory proceedings against the same order without a proper legal basis, as that may amount to an abuse of process.
- Consequences
A defective composite application may lead to:
- Dismissal in limine. If the Court sustains an objection to competence and the relief claimed is indivisible, the entire application may fail.
- Loss of an arguable challenge. A strong challenge to one order may be undermined by the inclusion of others that raise distinct difficulties.
- Cost and delay. Preliminary objections, further applications and fresh proceedings consume time and resources, and the substantive complaint may be overtaken by events.
An application should therefore identify the particular order challenged, the specific defect alleged and the legal basis on which the Court is asked to intervene.
- JUDICIAL GUIDANCE
- Best Assurance Company Ltd v. Alhaji Mohammed Abass
In Best Assurance Company Ltd v. Alhaji Mohammed Abass (Civil Appeal No. H1/34/2022, 28 July 2022), a single appeal concerned two separate decisions, one challenged within time and the other outside the prescribed period. The Court of Appeal, Kumasi, held that the Notice of Appeal was incompetent and that the appellate jurisdiction had not been properly invoked. Domakyaareh (Mrs.) JA, speaking for the Court, stated:
“Every appeal must be directed at a separate judgment or order and not at judgments/orders. In other words combining appeals of more than one judgment/order in one Notice of Appeal renders the Notice of Appeal incompetent which results in a failure to invoke the jurisdiction of the Appellate court.”
The decision concerned a Notice of Appeal, not an application invoking supervisory jurisdiction. Its reasoning is instructive for composite certiorari applications, but its application to them must be assessed against the rules and authorities governing supervisory jurisdiction.
- Ex parte Attorney-General (Zenith Bank, Interested Party)
In Republic v. High Court (Commercial Division), Accra; Ex parte Attorney-General (Zenith Bank, Interested Party) [2018–2019] 1 GLR 825, the Attorney-General invoked the Supreme Court’s supervisory jurisdiction to challenge two High Court decisions: a Garnishee Order Nisi made on September 25, 2018, and a ruling of November 6, 2018 refusing to set it aside. The decisions were made by different judges but challenged in a single motion. The majority dismissed the application. Gbadegbe JSC (as he then was) identified three concerns:
- Separate time limits. Each order may attract its own time limit, so combining orders made on different dates complicates the question whether each challenge is in time.
- Separate legal consequences. Each order may carry its own rights of appeal or grounds of collateral challenge, and the rules must be applied to the particular decision challenged.
- Consolidation is a judicial decision. Where separate proceedings have been properly commenced, whether they should be heard together is for the Court to decide in its discretion. The convenience of a single motion is not the same as a judicial order of consolidation.
The judgment also referred to Rule 61(1)(b) of C.I. 16, which requires a copy of “the order” challenged, underscoring the need to identify the particular order that is the subject of a supervisory application.
Together, the two decisions show the procedural risks of challenging multiple decisions in one proceeding. The effect of each must still be considered in its own procedural context, especially where an appeal is being distinguished from certiorari.
- CONCLUSION
Challenging two orders in a single application is tempting, especially where the orders arise from the same proceedings or concern related issues. Convenience, however, should not displace the procedural requirements of the remedy sought. Each order must be examined for its grounds of challenge, its time limit, the adequacy of alternative remedies and the discretionary considerations governing the Court’s intervention. Orders made in the same proceedings may still require distinct legal analysis.
Best Assurance and Ex parte Attorney-General (supra) arise in different procedural contexts, but both warn against combining challenges to separate decisions. In my view, practitioners should seriously consider preparing a separate application for each order complained of. That course promotes clarity, allows each challenge to be assessed on its merits and reduces the risk that an arguable complaint is lost to an avoidable procedural objection.
Effective use of the supervisory jurisdiction requires more than dissatisfaction with a decision. It requires precision about the order challenged, the defect alleged and the remedy sought. Since certiorari remains a narrowly confined discretionary remedy, that precision may prove decisive.
