DYNAMIC YOUTH MOVEMENT OF GHANA & ANOTHER v. HON. KEN OFORI ATTA & OTHERS
July 11, 2018
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- PWAMANG, JSC SITTING AS A SINGLE JUDGE
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure
July 11, 2018
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice G. Pwamang, JSC, sitting as a single judge of the Supreme Court of Ghana, addressed an interlocutory application in an original jurisdiction suit in which plaintiffs seek interpretation and enforcement of Articles 284 and 286 of the 1992 Constitution, anchored partly on a report of the 2nd defendant. The 1st and 3rd defendants requested leave to amend their joint statement of case to present a comprehensive response. Plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant opposed, alleging bad faith, delay, and surprise, and raising a technical objection under Article 88 that the Attorney-General should not represent the 1st defendant, citing Tsikata v Chief Justice & AG. The Chief State Attorney, Sylvester Williams, responded that any Article 88 breach must be properly invoked before the Supreme Court. The Court overruled the objection, reaffirmed Rule 49 of CI 16’s liberal approach to amendments and the guidance from Yeboah v Bofour, and granted leave to amend to secure complete adjudication and avoid multiplicity of suits.
PWAMANG, JSC:-
In the substantive suit, the plaintiffs invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for interpretation and enforcement of Articles 284 and 286 of the Constitution, 1992 among other provisions of the Constitution. The parties have filed their respective statements of case. In the application before the court, the 1st and 3rd defendants are praying for leave to amend their joint statement of case. Applicants stated that after a close study of the report of the 2nd Defendant on the back of which plaintiffs mounted their action, the Defendants have decided to amend their statement of case to place the whole of their response before the court for determination.
The plaintiffs and 2nd defendant are opposed to the application. Plaintiffs contended that the application is not being made in good faith since the report of 2nd defendant has always been available to defendants. Plaintiffs further say that the intended amendment will lead to delay in the determination of the suit and take them by surprise. Their lawyer referred the court to the case of YEBOA V BOFOUR [1971] 2 GLR 199 CA.
The 2nd defendant has taken a technical objection to the application by arguing that the intended amendment is in defence of the 1st defendant whose personal conduct in the issuance of Government of Ghana bonds is in question. 2nd defendant says it will amount to a breach of Article 88 of the Constitution for the Attorney-General who is the legal advisor to the Government to defend the 1st defendant in the circumstances of this case. They referred the court to the case of TSIKATA V CHIEF JUSTICE & AG [2001-2002] SCGLR 437. The plaintiffs quickly associated themselves with the submissions of 2nd defendant on Article 88 of the Constitution.
In responds to the submissions on Article 88 learned Counsel representing the Attorney-General, Chief State Attorney, Sylvester Williams Esq argued that the role the 1st defendant's played in the issuance of the Government of Ghana bonds was in his capacity as a public officer so it is the Attorney-General who ought to represent him in court. He further stated that if 2nd defendant and plaintiff claim that the Attorney-General's representation of 1st defendant breaches Article 88 of the Constitution, then they have to properly invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court duly constituted for a declaration to that effect.
I am in agreement with Mr Sylvester Williams that the allegation of breach of Article 88 of the c