APPIAH v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL: RE ELECTION OF FIRST PRESIDENT OF SECOND REPUBLIC
1970
COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
- Bannerman Ag. CJ
- Lassey
- Amissah JA
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Administrative Law
1970
COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
A panel comprising Bannerman Ag. CJ, Lassey, and Amissah JA addressed a petition challenging the validity of an election that was filed without complying with rule 3(d) of C.I. 10, which requires detailed supporting facts and identification of intended witnesses. Despite the procedural defect, the court permitted the petitioner to present his case and to call the Interim Electoral Commissioner, although the witness was not listed in the petition, so as to afford every opportunity to demonstrate commitment to the rule of law. The court cautioned, however, that this indulgence should not be treated as precedent and emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural rules. It further underscored that proceedings governed by the Court of Appeal’s procedures demand clearly and precisely stated questions and sufficient particulars. The court found the posture of the case unsatisfactory, noting that the petitioner appeared to shift grounds as the hearing progressed.
“Although the petitioner did not comply with the requirement of rule 3(d) of C.I. 10, namely, ‘the petition shall state… details of any facts in support of his case and the witnesses, if any, on whom he intends to rely for the proof of such facts,’ he was nevertheless allowed to present his case without supplying such details and to call, as a witness, the Interim Electoral Commissioner, who had not been mentioned as a witness in the petition. This indulgence was granted in an effort to give the petitioner every opportunity to demonstrate his support for the rule of law which, according to his counsel, had motivated him to file the petition. The should not be taken as a precedent, and it would have been more satisfactory if the petitioner had complied with the rules of the law governing the institution of such proceedings in his bid to establish the general rule of law. It is not necessary for us to stress that in a case like this where the rules of procedure to be followed are those of the Court of Appeal, with such modifications as may be necessary, the question posed for determination should be stated clearly and precisely, and such details of facts, with other particulars as are required by the rules to be supplied, must be given to help the court determine the issues. The position, as it turned out before us, was rather unsatisfactory with the petitioner appearing to shift his ground in an attempt to question the validity of the election on arguments which appeared to arise as the case proceeded.”