Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Ghana decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Republic v High Court, Kumasi and Another (J5/75/2025) [2025] GHASC 48 (23 July 2025)
The High Court, Kumasi, violated the applicant's right to be heard by making an order affecting his statutory rights as Ga Mantse without notice or hearing, rendering its decision and the consequential Court of Appeal decision liable to be quashed by certiorari.
Source excerpt
Jebuni and Another and Badingu v Mwinibankuro and Another (J8/81/2025) [2025] GHASC 46 (23 July 2025)
The majority held that, despite the application being out of time under Rule 7(1) of C.I. 16, the Supreme Court has discretion under Article 131(2) of the Constitution to grant special leave to appeal in the interest of justice, particularly where there is a prima facie error or important legal issue. The application was granted as exceptional circumstances existed. The dissent held that Article 131(2) does not empower the Supreme Court to grant special leave in chieftaincy matters from the National House of Chiefs, and the application was incurably out of time and should be dismissed.
Source excerpt
NANA ASARE ASSIEDU VRS. MENSAH (GJ1/24/2025) [2025] GHAHC 56 (11 March 2025)
The High Court held that the defendant failed to prove the plaintiff’s alleged destoolment, so the plaintiff remained Kotwi chief and could sue for the stool.
REPUBLIC VRS KWAKU APPIAH, EXPARTE JOSEPH AMOH & ANOR (C13/01/2025) [2024] GHAHC 406 (5 December 2024)
The respondent, having actual and constructive knowledge of the injunction order, willfully disobeyed it by holding himself out as chief. Personal service was not a precondition for contempt in this context. The reconstitution of the Judicial Committee did not invalidate the order, and the respondent's reliance on legal advice did not negate willfulness. The inclusion of Exhibit F was disregarded as it was not before the certifying committee.
Source excerpt
DJANGMAH VRS DORKUTSO & ANOR (J2/01/2024) [2024] GHASC 46 (30 October 2024)
The Supreme Court held that the issue of rotational succession between the Loweh Adainya and Loweh Kpono families had not been conclusively determined in previous cases, as prior pronouncements were obiter dicta and not binding precedent. Upon evaluating the evidence, including admissions by the Appellants and the history of succession, the Court found that the Loweh Adainya Royal Family alone has the customary right to nominate, select, elect, install, and enstool the paramount chief of the Great Ningo Traditional Area. The appeal was dismissed and the decision of the Judicial Committee of t…
Source excerpt
THE REPUBLIC VRS THE PRESIDENT (CENTRAL REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS) (J7/20/2023) [2024] GHASC 48 (29 October 2024)
The omission by the ordinary bench to consider Article 54 of the Standing Orders of the Central Regional House of Chiefs did not amount to an exceptional circumstance or fundamental error resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The applicant participated in the proceedings, the issue was not raised in prior courts, and the Standing Orders are not binding law under Article 11 of the Constitution. The review jurisdiction is not an avenue for re-arguing dismissed appeals or for correcting non-fundamental errors.
Source excerpt
REPUBLIC VRS ALHASSAN & 3 OTHERS (C10/12/2022) [2024] GHAHC 357 (25 July 2024)
The respondents had notice of the JCSTC judgment restraining them from dealing with the Twafo stool of Sampa. They willfully disobeyed the judgment by enstooling the 4th respondent and making public announcements, despite not appealing or seeking to set aside the judgment. The alleged arbitration was invalid due to lack of required signatures and did not estop the JCSTC proceedings. The applicant, as customary successor, had capacity to bring the contempt application. The inconsistencies and alleged fraud in the exhibits did not affect the substance or validity of the JCSTC judgment, which re…
Source excerpt
REPUBLIC VRS ALHASSAN & 3 OTHERS (C10/12/2022) [2024] GHAHC 188 (25 July 2024)
The Respondents had notice of the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Sampa Traditional Council, which restrained them from dealing with the Twafo stool of Sampa. Despite this, they willfully disobeyed the judgment by parading the 4th Respondent as Twafohene. The alleged inconsistencies and claims of fraud do not affect the validity of the judgment, which remains binding until set aside. The Applicant, as customary successor, has capacity to bring the application. The Respondents are therefore liable for contempt beyond reasonable doubt.
Source excerpt
REPUBLIC VRS THE NORTH MO TRADITIONAL COUNCIL (Criminal Case) [2024] GHACC 300 (27 June 2024)
The letter from the North Mo Traditional Council is not an order, judgment, or decision affecting rights and obligations, but merely conveys information. It is not amenable to judicial review by certiorari. The High Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate chieftaincy matters, which must be pursued before the Judicial Committee of the Regional House of Chiefs. The application is dismissed for lack of merit and jurisdiction.
Source excerpt
REPUBLIC VRS. KING ODAIFIO WELENTSI III . EX PARTE: SETH OTU OKLEY (E12/226/2023) [2024] GHAHC 161 (22 April 2024)
The High Court dismissed a judicial review application against the Nungua Traditional Council as out of time under CI 47, and also saw no illegality in the regency appointment.
Explore more
