EMMANUEL NOBLE KOR & ORS v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND JUSTICE ISAAC DELALI DUOSE
2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ATUGUBA JSC
- DOTSE JSC
- ANIN YEBOAH JSC
- GBADEGBE JSC
- AKOTO - BAMFO (MRS) JSC
- BENIN JSC
- AKAMBA JSC
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this case, the Plaintiff challenged the President's power to vary the recommendations of the Committee on the emoluments of Superior Court Judges. The Supreme Court held that the Plaintiff had properly invoked its jurisdiction both for enforcement and interpretation. The Court ruled that the President does not need to determine emoluments in accordance with the advice of the Council of State but must appoint the Committee in accordance with such advice. The President can vary the Committee's recommendations within reasonable bounds. The formula for calculating gratuity applies to all Superior Court Judges retiring from January 7, 2009, based on their entire term of service.
JUDGMENT
ATUGUBA JSC
THE FACTS
The facts of this case are that, by letter dated the 4th day of January 2013, signed by the Chief of Staff on his behalf the President of Ghana, His Excellency, John Dramani Mahama approved the implementation of the report of the Professor Marian Ewurama Addy Presidential Committee on the emoluments of the Superior Court Judges, subject to a variation that “Gratuity shall be calculated as four months consolidated salary for each year (or fraction thereof) served”.
The Plaintiff by his writ challenges the power of the President to vary the said report.
The second defendant, Justice Isaac Delali Duose, a retired Court of Appeal Judge, having initiated an action in the High Court for reliefs relating to this same matter was on his application, joined to this suit as the 2nd defendant.
Both defendants, inter alia, contend that article 71 is clear and unambiguous and therefore raises neither an interpretation or enforcement issue within the original jurisdiction of this court.
The pursuant memorandum of agreed issues is as follows:-
1. “Whether the Plaintiff has properly invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
2. Whether the instant suit raises any issue(s) of constitutional interpretation and/or enforcement.
3. Whether the determination by the President of the salaries including gratuities of the Chief Justice and Superior Court Judges should be done in accordance with the advice of the Council of State.
4. Whether in determining the salaries including gratuities of the Chief Justice and Superior Court Judges, the President is entitled to vary the recommendations of the Committee set up pursuant to Article 71 (1) (b) of the 1992 Constitution.
5. Whether the President in determining the gratuities of the Superior Court Judges acted outside the recommendations of the Committee set up under article 71 (1) (b).
6. Whether a Superior Court Judge who retires from 7th January 2009 is entitled to have his/her gratuity calculated on the basis of the new formula in Exhibit D (a) from the date of his/her appointment or (b) from 7th January 2009.
7. Whether the conduct of any of the parties in obtaining and using public/official documents in sustaining their case or defence should be deplored.”
ISSUES 1 AND 2
The first two issues raise the question whether the original jurisdiction of this court has been properly invoked. The contention is that, as laid down in Osei Boateng v National Media Commission& Appenteng