Muhammed Vrs Attorney General and Others [2016] GHASC 66 (3 March 2016)

Muhammed Vrs Attorney General and Others [2016] GHASC 66 (3 March 2016)

The Plaintiff’s reliefs did not raise any genuine issue of constitutional interpretation or enforcement, and the attempt to set aside a Supreme Court review decision via original jurisdiction was an abuse of process. The matter was res judicata and the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the action.

Citation
[2016] GHASC 66
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Abdulai Yusif Fanash Muhammed; 1st Defendant: Attorney-General & Ministry of Justice; 2nd Defendant: Alfred Agbesi Woyome; 3rd Defendant/applicant: Martin Alamisi Amidu
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
3 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Jurisdiction
Outcome
Plaintiff’s action dismissed for want of jurisdiction; costs awarded against Plaintiff’s counsel.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Res Judicata, Abuse of Process, Interpretation of Constitution
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Res Judicata Abuse of Process Interpretation of Constitution

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdulai Yusif Fanash Muhammed

Plaintiff/respondent

Attorney-General & Ministry of Justice

1st Defendant

Alfred Agbesi Woyome

2nd Defendant

Martin Alamisi Amidu

3rd Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiff’s action challenging the jurisdiction of the review bench in Amidu (No 3) v Attorney General, Waterville Holding (BVI) Ltd & Woyome (No 1) [2013-14] 1SCGLR 606
  2. 2 Whether the reliefs sought raise any issue of interpretation or enforcement of the Constitution under articles 2(1) and 130
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff can seek to set aside a Supreme Court review decision via original jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff’s reliefs did not raise any genuine issue of constitutional interpretation or enforcement, and the attempt to set aside a Supreme Court review decision via original jurisdiction was an abuse of process. The matter was res judicata and the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the action.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff’s action dismissed for want of jurisdiction; costs awarded against Plaintiff’s counsel.

Orders

  • Plaintiff’s writ dismissed
  • Costs of GH 5,000 awarded to 1st Defendant