Republic Vrs Judicial Service Of Ghana [2017] GHASC 38 (11 April 2017)

Republic Vrs Judicial Service Of Ghana [2017] GHASC 38 (11 April 2017)

The High Court Judge did not interpret the Constitution but applied its provisions to the facts. The applicant, as Registrar, is a judicial officer but does not exercise judicial power and is not protected under Articles 127 and 161 from disciplinary proceedings. No jurisdictional error was committed to warrant certiorari.

Citation
[2017] GHASC 38
Parties
Applicant: Catherine De Souza; 1st Respondent: Judicial Service of Ghana; 2nd Respondent: Attorney General
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
11 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Motion (judicial Review/certiorari) / Ruling on Application for Certiorari
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Certiorari, Disciplinary Proceedings, Judicial Immunity, Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Employment Law Judicial Review Certiorari Disciplinary Proceedings Judicial Immunity 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catherine De Souza

Applicant

Judicial Service of Ghana

1st Respondent

Attorney General

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Motion (judicial Review/certiorari) / Ruling on Application for Certiorari

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court Judge exceeded jurisdiction by interpreting Articles 127 and 161 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the applicant, as Registrar, is protected under Articles 127 and 161 from disciplinary proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the High Court Judge's reference to the definition of 'judicial power' amounted to constitutional interpretation

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court Judge did not interpret the Constitution but applied its provisions to the facts. The applicant, as Registrar, is a judicial officer but does not exercise judicial power and is not protected under Articles 127 and 161 from disciplinary proceedings. No jurisdictional error was committed to warrant certiorari.

Court Disposition

application dismissed