Ankomah-nimfah [2022] GHASC 19 (5 April 2022)

Ankomah-nimfah [2022] GHASC 19 (5 April 2022)

The Supreme Court found that the applicant was duly served with the processes through the modes ordered, including postings and publication, and that any non-compliance with the order for substituted service was not fundamental, did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and did not warrant review. The court held that the applicant's right to file responses was not prejudiced, and the management of hearing dates did not violate due process or the rules of court. The application for review was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2022] GHASC 19
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Michael Ankomah-Nimfah; 1st Defendant/applicant: James Gyakye Quayson; 2nd Defendant/respondent: The Electoral Commission; 3rd Defendant/respondent: The Attorney-General
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
5 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Motion (review of Supreme Court Orders) / Ruling on Application for Review
Outcome
application for review dismissed
Legal Topics
Substituted Service, Review Jurisdiction, Compliance With Court Orders, Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Substituted Service Review Jurisdiction Compliance With Court Orders Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Ankomah-Nimfah

Plaintiff/respondent

James Gyakye Quayson

1st Defendant/applicant

The Electoral Commission

2nd Defendant/respondent

The Attorney-General

3rd Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court erred in accepting substituted service as sufficient despite alleged non-compliance with its own order
  2. 2 Whether the court acted outside its jurisdiction by fixing hearing dates before expiry of statutory periods for filing responses
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was denied the opportunity to file a statement of case within the time limits provided by the rules

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that the applicant was duly served with the processes through the modes ordered, including postings and publication, and that any non-compliance with the order for substituted service was not fundamental, did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and did not warrant review. The court held that the applicant's right to file responses was not prejudiced, and the management of hearing dates did not violate due process or the rules of court. The application for review was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

application for review dismissed

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • The ruling of 8th March 2022 stands.