Synopsis:
The Respondents in Chonco 2 served their bill of costs on the State Attorney but the latter refused to make full payment, adopting the stance that the order made in Chonco 2 was applicable only to the case before this Court. The Registrar was then approached with a request that the Chief Justice issue a ruling. This request was treated as an application. The Court dealt with the issue on that basis. The Court observed that its express statement in the original judgment that ?the pardon applicants and their legal advisors should not be out of pocket because of their recourse to legal proceedings? could not but cover the costs in the High Court as well as in the Supreme Court of Appeal. However, the costs order had failed to make that explicit. This Court found that the pardon applicants were entitled to have the order in the original judgment varied and it accordingly replaced its original order. Judgment of The Court.
