The Republic Vrs High Court Ho Ex Parte Attorney General [2021] GHASC 171 (30 March 2021)

The Republic Vrs High Court Ho Ex Parte Attorney General [2021] GHASC 171 (30 March 2021)

The High Court, although vested with jurisdiction over both fundamental human rights and parliamentary elections, cannot assume jurisdiction to make declarations regarding parliamentary elections unless its jurisdiction has been specifically invoked by petition under Article 99 and PNDCL 284. Reliefs relating to the validity of parliamentary elections cannot be granted under the guise of human rights enforcement under Article 33. The Supreme Court's earlier decision did not contain fundamental errors or result in a miscarriage of justice; therefore, the application for review is dismissed.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 171
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Attorney General; Interested Party/applicant: Prof. Margaret Kwaku; Interested Party/applicant: Simon Alan Opoku Mintah; Interested Party/applicant: John Kwame Obimpeh; Interested Party/applicant: Godfred Koku Fofie; Interested Party/applicant: Felix Quarshie
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
30 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Motion (review of Supreme Court Ruling on Certiorari Application) / Ruling on Application for Review
Outcome
application for review dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of High Court, Parliamentary Election Petitions, Enforcement of Fundamental Human Rights, Supervisory Jurisdiction of Supreme Court, Review of Supreme Court Decisions
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Election Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of High Court Parliamentary Election Petitions Enforcement of Fundamental Human Rights Supervisory Jurisdiction of Supreme Court +1 more

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 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant/respondent

Prof. Margaret Kwaku

Interested Party/applicant

Simon Alan Opoku Mintah

Interested Party/applicant

John Kwame Obimpeh

Interested Party/applicant

Godfred Koku Fofie

Interested Party/applicant

Felix Quarshie

Interested Party/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Motion (review of Supreme Court Ruling on Certiorari Application) / Ruling on Application for Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court erred in quashing High Court orders relating to parliamentary elections via certiorari
  2. 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 33 to grant reliefs relating to the validity of parliamentary elections
  3. 3 Whether the Supreme Court's decision resulted in a miscarriage of justice warranting review

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court, although vested with jurisdiction over both fundamental human rights and parliamentary elections, cannot assume jurisdiction to make declarations regarding parliamentary elections unless its jurisdiction has been specifically invoked by petition under Article 99 and PNDCL 284. Reliefs relating to the validity of parliamentary elections cannot be granted under the guise of human rights enforcement under Article 33. The Supreme Court's earlier decision did not contain fundamental errors or result in a miscarriage of justice; therefore, the application for review is dismissed.

Court Disposition

application for review dismissed

Orders

  • application for review of the Supreme Court's decision of 5th January 2021 is refused and dismissed