Ghana Case Law

MARKIN vrs SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT &ATTORNEY GENERAL (J1/01/2025)

MARKIN vrs SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT &ATTORNEY GENERAL (J1/01/2025) [2024] GHASC 43 (30 October 2024)

Court

ghasc

The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and enforce constitutional provisions, including article 97(1)(g) on vacation of parliamentary seats. The application to set aside proceedings and vacate the interim order is without merit because the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is clear under articles 2 and 130, service of processes was valid, and the ex parte order was justified by exceptional circumstances to prevent irreparable harm. The Supreme Court is not bound by the ten-day limit for ex parte orders applicable to the High Court.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction of supreme court
• Interpretation of constitution
• Vacation of parliamentary seats
• Service of court processes
• Ex parte orders
• Natural justice

Read case analysis

DR. PRINCE OBIRI-KORANG VRS ATTORNEY GENERAL (J1/18/2021)

DR. PRINCE OBIRI-KORANG VRS ATTORNEY GENERAL (J1/18/2021) [2024] GHASC 21 (24 July 2024)

Court

ghasc

Section 104(1)(b) of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), which criminalizes unnatural carnal knowledge between consenting adults, does not contravene Articles 14(1), 17(2), or 18(2) of the 1992 Constitution. The provision is not discriminatory, does not infringe on privacy or personal liberty as protected by the Constitution, and is justified by Ghanaian public morals, health, and the public interest. The Constitution does not recognize sexual orientation as a protected ground for non-discrimination, and the right to privacy and liberty are subject to lawful limitations. The l…

Source excerpt

• Right to privacy
• Equality and non-discrimination
• Personal liberty
• Criminalization of homosexuality
• Interpretation of constitution

Read case analysis

KWAME BAFFOE VRS ATTORNEY-GENERAL (J1/12/2021)

KWAME BAFFOE VRS ATTORNEY-GENERAL (J1/12/2021) [2024] GHASC 28 (24 April 2024)

Court

ghasc

Parliament's approval of salaries for the First and Second Ladies is inconsistent with Article 71 of the 1992 Constitution, as their positions are not listed among public office holders entitled to emoluments under that article. The Emoluments Committee's recommendations are not binding and cannot expand the scope of Article 71. The approval is therefore null, void, and unenforceable.

Source excerpt

• Emoluments of public officers
• Interpretation of constitution
• Parliamentary powers
• Public funds
• Separation of powers

Read case analysis

CHILD RIGHTS INTERNATIONAL VRS THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (J1/16/2022)

CHILD RIGHTS INTERNATIONAL VRS THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (J1/16/2022) [2024] GHASC 6 (28 February 2024)

Court

ghasc

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction was properly invoked, as the constitutional provisions cited are clear and Parliament has enacted relevant legislation. The reliefs sought do not raise genuine issues of constitutional interpretation or enforcement, and any enforcement action should be directed at statutory bodies responsible for children's welfare, not the Attorney-General. The action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and justiciability.

Source excerpt

• Interpretation of constitution
• Justiciability
• Directive principles of state policy
• Children's welfare
• Standing
• Enforcement of constitutional provisions

Read case analysis

Axim Vrs The Attorney-general

Axim Vrs The Attorney-general [2023] GHASC 73 (6 April 2023)

Court

Supreme Court

The provisions of Articles 187 and 88 of the Constitution are clear and unambiguous. The Auditor-General does not have exclusive rights to audit public accounts, and the Attorney-General's mandate to prosecute is not subject to the Auditor-General's powers. The Supreme Court's interpretation jurisdiction was not properly invoked as no genuine issue of interpretation arises.

Source excerpt

• Interpretation of constitution
• Auditor-general's powers
• Attorney-general's powers
• Public accounts audit
• Jurisdiction of supreme court

Read case analysis

The Republic Vrs Hc Ex Parte; Opuni

The Republic Vrs Hc Ex Parte; Opuni [2023] GHASC 50 (24 January 2023)

Court

Supreme Court

The trial judge, Honyenuga JSC, acted within jurisdiction as he was properly granted a six-month extension by the Chief Justice under Article 145(4) to continue proceedings commenced before him prior to attaining retirement age. The Chief Justice, not the President, is the proper authority for such extension. There was no breach of binding precedent or natural justice, and the application for certiorari and perpetual injunction was without merit.

Source excerpt

• Certiorari
• Perpetual injunction
• Judicial tenure
• Jurisdiction
• Natural justice
• Bias

Read case analysis

Republic Vrs High Court, Accra: Exparte Opuni

Republic Vrs High Court, Accra: Exparte Opuni [2023] GHASC 5 (24 January 2023)

Court

ghasc

The trial judge, Honyenuga JSC, acted within jurisdiction as he was properly granted a six-month extension by the Chief Justice under Article 145(4) to continue proceedings commenced before his retirement. The Chief Justice, not the President, is empowered to grant such extension. There was no breach of natural justice or binding Supreme Court authority, and the facts did not support a finding of bias or lack of jurisdiction.

Source excerpt

• Certiorari
• Perpetual injunction
• Judicial tenure
• Jurisdiction
• Natural justice
• Bias

Read case analysis

Gorni Vrs The Attorney-general & Anor

Gorni Vrs The Attorney-general & Anor [2022] GHASC 95 (1 November 2022)

Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court interpreted Article 276(1) and held that chiefs may not endorse candidates or parties, but may praise or criticise policies and projects.

• Interpretation of constitution
• Chieftaincy and politics
• Freedom of expression
• Jurisdiction of supreme court
• Constitutional-interpretation
• Chieftaincy-and-politics

Read case analysis

Belieb Vrs Attorney-general & Anor

Belieb Vrs Attorney-general & Anor [2022] GHASC 53 (27 July 2022)

Court

Supreme Court

The inclusion of the Chief Justice's name on writs of summons, as required by Order 2 Rule 3(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I.47), does not contravene the Preamble, Articles 1, 2(1), or 125 of the 1992 Constitution. The practice is administrative, does not elevate the Chief Justice above the Constitution, and the writs clearly emanate from the Republic of Ghana as evidenced by the Coat of Arms and the words 'Republic of Ghana.' The plaintiff's claims are misconceived and unsupported by evidence or constitutional interpretation.

Source excerpt

• Interpretation of constitution
• Judicial administration
• Locus standi
• Declaratory reliefs
• Practice and procedure

Read case analysis

REPUBLIC VRS. COURT OF APPEAL, CAPE COAST EX PARTE: GYAKYE QUAYSON , INTERESTED PARTIES ANKOMAH-NIMFAH AND ELECTORAL COMMISSION (J7/15/2022)

REPUBLIC VRS. COURT OF APPEAL, CAPE COAST EX PARTE: GYAKYE QUAYSON , INTERESTED PARTIES ANKOMAH-NIMFAH AND ELECTORAL COMMISSION (J7/15/2022) [2022] GHASC 134 (27 July 2022)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

J7/15/2022

The majority held that the Court of Appeal did not commit any fundamental or patent error of law in refusing to refer Article 94(2)(a) to the Supreme Court for interpretation at the stage when the application was made. The processes before the Court of Appeal were insufficient to determine whether a real and genuine constitutional issue arose, and the procedural requirements for reference had not been met. The application for certiorari was therefore unmeritorious. The majority further held that since a writ seeking interpretation of Article 94(2)(a) was already pending before the Supreme Cou…

Source excerpt

• Supervisory jurisdiction
• Interpretation of constitution
• Qualification for parliament
• Certiorari
• Stay of proceedings
• Reference procedure

Read case analysis