2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
On 22nd December 2015, the Plaintiff sought declarations in the Supreme Court of Ghana regarding the constitutionality and jurisdiction over financial engineering claims involving the Government of Ghana. The 3rd Defendant objected on jurisdictional grounds, leading the Court to first determine this preliminary issue. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the objection, dismissing the Plaintiff's writ as a misuse of judicial process, underscoring that such matters should be brought before the ordinary bench. The Court also highlighted the precedence set by similar cases, reinforcing principles against relitigating previously decided issues.
RULING
ADINYIRA (MRS), JSC:
The Plaintiff on 22nd December 2015 commenced this action invoking the original jurisdiction of this Court claiming the following reliefs:
“1. A declaration that the financial engineering claims by Alfred Agbesi Woyome arising out of the tender bid by Vamed Engineering GmbH/Waterville Holdings during the procurement process from June 2005 until its wrongful abrogation in August 2005 is not an international business transaction within the meaning of article 181 of the Constitution, 1992.”
2. A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of article 2(1), article 130 and article 181 of the Constitution, 1992 the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to pronounce on the financial engineering claims between a citizen of Ghana and the Government of Ghana which does not fall within the ambit of purview of article 181.
3. A declaration that the review decision of the Supreme Court in suit No. J7/10/2013 intituled (sic) Martin Alamisi Amidu v The Attorney General, Waterville Holding (BVI) Limited and Alfred Agbesi Woyome dated 29th July 2014 is wrong in law for excess of jurisdiction as same was obtained in violation of the Constitution, 1992.
4. A declaration that the consequential orders in Suit No. J7/10/2013 intituled (sic) Martin Alamisi v The Attorney General, Waterville Holding (BVI) Limited and Alfred Agbesi Woyome dated 29th July 2014 given in the review decision by the same Court are wrong in law, pull and void ab initio and accordingly ought to be set aside in
exercise of the powers of this Honourable Court to set aside its own void judgments.
On 19 January 2016, the 3rd defendant filed a notice of motion to raise a preliminary legal objection to the jurisdiction of this Court in this action. This point was set down as issue 4 in the joint memoranda of issues filed by the 1st and 3rd Defendants on 9 February 2016.
Issue 4 was as follows:
“Whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiff’s action challenging the jurisdiction of the review bench of the Court in Amidu (No 3) v Attorney General, Waterville Holding (BVI) Ltd & Woyome (No 1) [2013-14] 1SCGLR]606”
On 11 February 2016, the parties agreed to this jurisdictional issue to be determined first as the outcome may determine the fate of the Plaintiff’s writ one way or the other. This Court therefore set down issue 4 of the 1st and 3rd Defendants’ memorandum of issues for legal arguments.
The 3rd Defendant, a former Attorney G