Ankomah-nimfah Vrs Quayson & 2 Ors [2022] GHASC 24 (5 April 2022)

Ankomah-nimfah Vrs Quayson & 2 Ors [2022] GHASC 24 (5 April 2022)

The court held that the substituted service was sufficiently effected in accordance with its order, as the primary objective was to bring the proceedings to the applicant's notice, which was achieved through multiple postings and publication. The applicant had actual notice and was represented. Any non-compliance was not fundamental or jurisdictional and did not occasion a miscarriage of justice. The grounds for review did not meet the threshold of exceptional circumstances or fundamental error required for review under Rule 54(a) of CI 16.

Citation
[2022] GHASC 24
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, Review Jurisdiction, Compliance With Court Orders, Jurisdiction, Due Process
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Substituted Service Review Jurisdiction Compliance With Court Orders Jurisdiction 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 11 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's orders violated rules of procedure or due process, occasioning a miscarriage of justice
  3. 3 Whether non-compliance with procedural rules invalidated the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the substituted service was sufficiently effected in accordance with its order, as the primary objective was to bring the proceedings to the applicant's notice, which was achieved through multiple postings and publication. The applicant had actual notice and was represented. Any non-compliance was not fundamental or jurisdictional and did not occasion a miscarriage of justice. The grounds for review did not meet the threshold of exceptional circumstances or fundamental error required for review under Rule 54(a) of CI 16.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed