APPIAH v ATTORNEY-GENERAL: RE ELECTION OF FIRST PRESIDENT OF SECOND REPUBLIC
1970
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- Bannerman Ag. CJ
- Lassey
- Amissah JA
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Administrative Law
1970
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The court addressed a petition challenging the validity of an election in which the petitioner failed to comply with rule 3(d) of C.I. 10 requiring the petition to state detailed facts and identify intended witnesses. Despite this procedural defect, the court allowed the petitioner to present his case and to call the Interim Electoral Commissioner, although the Commissioner was not named in the petition, in order to give the petitioner every opportunity consistent with the rule of law. The court emphasized that such indulgence should not create precedent and reaffirmed that, in such matters governed by Court of Appeal procedures, the questions must be clearly stated and the required particulars provided to assist issue determination. The court ultimately found the conduct of the petition unsatisfactory because the petitioner appeared to shift his grounds while attempting to challenge the elections validity during the proceedings.
"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."