MARKIN vrs SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT &ATTORNEY GENERAL (J1/01/2025) [2024] GHASC 43 (30 October 2024)

MARKIN vrs SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT &ATTORNEY GENERAL (J1/01/2025) [2024] GHASC 43 (30 October 2024)

The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and enforce constitutional provisions, including article 97(1)(g) on vacation of parliamentary seats. The application to set aside proceedings and vacate the interim order is without merit because the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is clear under articles 2 and 130, service of processes was valid, and the ex parte order was justified by exceptional circumstances to prevent irreparable harm. The Supreme Court is not bound by the ten-day limit for ex parte orders applicable to the High Court.

Citation
MARKIN vrs SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT &ATTORNEY GENERAL (J1/01/2025) [2024] GHASC 43 (30 October 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Alexander Afenyo Markin; 1st Defendant/applicant: Speaker of Parliament; 2nd Defendant/respondent: Attorney General
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
30 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Motion / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Proceedings and Vacate Interim Order
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Supreme Court, Interpretation of Constitution, Vacation of Parliamentary Seats, Service of Court Processes, Ex Parte Orders, Natural Justice
Source Language
eng
Constitutional Law Parliamentary Law Jurisdiction of Supreme Court Interpretation of Constitution Vacation of Parliamentary Seats Service of Court Processes Ex Parte Orders Natural Justice

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Afenyo Markin

Plaintiff/respondent

Speaker of Parliament

1st Defendant/applicant

Attorney General

2nd Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Motion / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Proceedings and Vacate Interim Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to interpret and enforce constitutional provisions relating to vacation of parliamentary seats under article 97(1)(g)
  2. 2 Whether service of court processes on the Speaker of Parliament was valid
  3. 3 Whether the Supreme Court's ex parte order of 18th October 2024 breached rules of natural justice or article 296

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and enforce constitutional provisions, including article 97(1)(g) on vacation of parliamentary seats. The application to set aside proceedings and vacate the interim order is without merit because the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is clear under articles 2 and 130, service of processes was valid, and the ex parte order was justified by exceptional circumstances to prevent irreparable harm. The Supreme Court is not bound by the ten-day limit for ex parte orders applicable to the High Court.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application to set aside proceedings and vacate interim order is dismissed.
  • Parties are to comply with the Supreme Court's directions for expedited hearing.