Ametefe Vrs Attorney General and Another [2017] GHASC 10 (1 February 2017)

Ametefe Vrs Attorney General and Another [2017] GHASC 10 (1 February 2017)

The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction was properly invoked as the Plaintiff's writ raised genuine controversies regarding the interpretation of Articles 2(1), 128, 130, and 134 of the Constitution, particularly the scope of a Single Justice's jurisdiction. The Plaintiff, as a citizen, had locus standi under Article 2(1). The Attorney General was a proper party, but the 2nd Defendant was not, as no act or omission was alleged against him under Article 2(1).

Citation
[2017] GHASC 10
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: David Kwadzo Ametefe; 1st Defendant/respondent: The Attorney General; 2nd Defendant/applicant: Martin Alamisi Amidu
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
1 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection overruled in part; 2nd Defendant struck out as party
Legal Topics
Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court, Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions, Locus Standi, Proper Parties to Suit
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions Locus Standi Proper Parties to Suit

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 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Kwadzo Ametefe

Plaintiff/respondent

The Attorney General

1st Defendant/respondent

Martin Alamisi Amidu

2nd Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction was properly invoked under Article 2(1) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the proper parties are before the Court

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction was properly invoked as the Plaintiff's writ raised genuine controversies regarding the interpretation of Articles 2(1), 128, 130, and 134 of the Constitution, particularly the scope of a Single Justice's jurisdiction. The Plaintiff, as a citizen, had locus standi under Article 2(1). The Attorney General was a proper party, but the 2nd Defendant was not, as no act or omission was alleged against him under Article 2(1).

Court Disposition

preliminary objection overruled in part; 2nd Defendant struck out as party

Orders

  • 2nd Defendant struck out as party to the suit
  • Preliminary objection and preliminary point of law by 1st Defendant overruled