Ankomah-nimfah Vrs Quayson & 2 Ors [2022] GHASC 76 (5 April 2022)

Ankomah-nimfah Vrs Quayson & 2 Ors [2022] GHASC 76 (5 April 2022)

The application for review was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances or miscarriage of justice. The court found that substituted service was sufficiently effected as ordered, the applicant had notice and representation, and any non-compliance was not fundamental or prejudicial. The court's exercise of discretion was proper and not arbitrary, and the rules regarding time for filing responses were not breached in a manner warranting review.

Citation
[2022] GHASC 76
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Michael Ankomah-Nimfah; 1st Defendant/applicant: James Gyakye Quayson; 2nd Defendant/respondent: The Electoral Commission; 3rd Defendant/respondent: The Attorney-General
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
5 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Motion (review) / Ruling on Application for Review of Substituted Service Orders
Outcome
Application for review dismissed
Legal Topics
Substituted Service, Jurisdiction, Review of Court Orders, Compliance With Court Orders, Due Process
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Substituted Service Jurisdiction Review of Court Orders Compliance With Court Orders Due Process

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Ankomah-Nimfah

Plaintiff/respondent

James Gyakye Quayson

1st Defendant/applicant

The Electoral Commission

2nd Defendant/respondent

The Attorney-General

3rd Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Motion (review) / Ruling on Application for Review of Substituted Service Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court erred in accepting substituted service as sufficient despite alleged non-compliance with its own order
  2. 2 Whether the court had jurisdiction to fix hearing dates before expiry of time for filing responses under the rules
  3. 3 Whether any miscarriage of justice or exceptional circumstances warrant review of the court's decision

Ratio Decidendi

The application for review was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances or miscarriage of justice. The court found that substituted service was sufficiently effected as ordered, the applicant had notice and representation, and any non-compliance was not fundamental or prejudicial. The court's exercise of discretion was proper and not arbitrary, and the rules regarding time for filing responses were not breached in a manner warranting review.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed

Orders

  • Application for review is dismissed
  • Costs awarded against the applicant