Ankomah-nimfah [2022] GHASC 18 (6 April 2022)

Ankomah-nimfah [2022] GHASC 18 (6 April 2022)

The majority held that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction in constitutional matters under Article 129(4), regardless of procedural technicalities regarding the citation of rules. The applicant established a prima facie case of continuing constitutional breach and contempt of court by the 1st Respondent, justifying the grant of an interlocutory injunction to protect the Constitution and the public interest. The balance of convenience favored restraining the 1st Respondent pending the suit's determination, as greater harm would result from allowing an unqualified person to act as Member of Parliament.

Citation
[2022] GHASC 18
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Michael Ankomah-Nimfah; 1st Defendant/respondent: James Gyakye Quayson; 2nd Defendant/respondent: The Electoral Commission; 3rd Defendant/respondent: The Attorney-General
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
6 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition/interlocutory Application / Ruling on Application for Interlocutory Injunction Pending Determination of Original Jurisdiction Suit
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction granted by majority; dissenting opinions dismissed the application.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Parliamentary Elections, Qualification of Members of Parliament, Jurisdiction of Supreme Court, Enforcement of Court Orders
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Electoral Law Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Parliamentary Elections Qualification of Members of Parliament Jurisdiction of Supreme Court Enforcement of Court Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 36 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Ankomah-Nimfah

Plaintiff/applicant

James Gyakye Quayson

1st Defendant/respondent

The Electoral Commission

2nd Defendant/respondent

The Attorney-General

3rd Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition/interlocutory Application / Ruling on Application for Interlocutory Injunction Pending Determination of Original Jurisdiction Suit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction in a constitutional matter where its original jurisdiction is invoked
  2. 2 Whether the application for interlocutory injunction is procedurally competent given the reliance on High Court Civil Procedure Rules
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case warranting the grant of an interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st Respondent from acting as Member of Parliament pending the suit's determination

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction in constitutional matters under Article 129(4), regardless of procedural technicalities regarding the citation of rules. The applicant established a prima facie case of continuing constitutional breach and contempt of court by the 1st Respondent, justifying the grant of an interlocutory injunction to protect the Constitution and the public interest. The balance of convenience favored restraining the 1st Respondent pending the suit's determination, as greater harm would result from allowing an unqualified person to act as Member of Parliament.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction granted by majority; dissenting opinions dismissed the application.

Orders

  • 1st Respondent is restrained from holding himself out as Member of Parliament for Assin North Constituency, presenting himself, and/or attending Parliament to conduct the business of a Member of Parliament pending the determination of the suit.
  • Parties are to file a joint or separate memorandum of issues by 25th April 2022.