Dynamic Youth Movement Of Ghana and Another Vrs Hon. Ken Ofori Atta and 2 Others [2018] GHASC 44 (11 July 2018)

Dynamic Youth Movement Of Ghana and Another Vrs Hon. Ken Ofori Atta and 2 Others [2018] GHASC 44 (11 July 2018)

The court held that the purpose of Rule 49 of CI 16 is to allow parties to present their full case and avoid multiplicity of suits. The grounds for amendment were found to have merit, and the technical objection regarding Article 88 was overruled as it was not properly raised.

Citation
[2018] GHASC 44
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Dynamic Youth Movement of Ghana; Plaintiff/respondent: Edward Tuttor; Defendant/applicant: Hon. Ken Ofori Atta (Min. of Finance); Defendant/respondent: Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ); Defendant/applicant: The Attorney-General
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
11 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend Statement of Case
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Representation by Attorney General, Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Representation by Attorney General Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dynamic Youth Movement of Ghana

Plaintiff/respondent

Edward Tuttor

Plaintiff/respondent

Hon. Ken Ofori Atta (Min. of Finance)

Defendant/applicant

Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ)

Defendant/respondent

The Attorney-General

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend Statement of Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to amend the joint statement of case by the 1st and 3rd defendants
  2. 2 Whether the Attorney-General can represent the 1st defendant in light of Article 88 of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the purpose of Rule 49 of CI 16 is to allow parties to present their full case and avoid multiplicity of suits. The grounds for amendment were found to have merit, and the technical objection regarding Article 88 was overruled as it was not properly raised.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • Leave granted to 1st and 3rd defendants to amend their joint statement of case.