Boateng Vrs National Media Commision and Another [2012] GHASC 33 (9 May 2012)

Boateng Vrs National Media Commision and Another [2012] GHASC 33 (9 May 2012)

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to hear the action because the plaintiff seeks enforcement of constitutional provisions in the public interest, not personal enforcement of human rights, and there is a genuine dispute over the interpretation and application of Articles 168 and 296, justifying the Court's jurisdiction. The preliminary objection is therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2012] GHASC 33
Parties
Plaintiff: Samuel Osei Boateng; 1st Defendant: National Media Commission; 2nd Defendant: Berifi Afari Apenteng
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
9 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection (constitutional Petition) / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Jurisdiction
Outcome
Preliminary objection dismissed; Supreme Court affirms jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court, Enforcement and Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions, Locus Standi in Constitutional Litigation, Discretionary Powers Under the Constitution, Jurisdiction Over Human Rights Enforcement
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court Enforcement and Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions Locus Standi in Constitutional Litigation Discretionary Powers Under the Constitution Jurisdiction Over Human Rights Enforcement

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Osei Boateng

Plaintiff

National Media Commission

1st Defendant

Berifi Afari Apenteng

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Objection (constitutional Petition) / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to hear the action based on enforcement of Article 23 (a human rights provision)
  2. 2 Whether Article 168 raises a question of interpretation or enforcement given its clarity
  3. 3 Whether the discretionary powers under Article 296 apply to the National Media Commission's appointment powers

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to hear the action because the plaintiff seeks enforcement of constitutional provisions in the public interest, not personal enforcement of human rights, and there is a genuine dispute over the interpretation and application of Articles 168 and 296, justifying the Court's jurisdiction. The preliminary objection is therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Preliminary objection dismissed; Supreme Court affirms jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled
  • Case to proceed on merits