2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiffs, Justices of the High Court, challenged the Judicial Council's decision to place them on half-salary and suspend their allowances during disciplinary actions, claiming it violated Ghanas 1992 Constitution. The arguments centered around whether these actions were lawful despite Article 127(5), which protects judicial remuneration from being varied to the disadvantage of justices. The court held that the Judicial Council had acted within their jurisdiction and that the original jurisdiction for constitutional interpretation was not properly invoked by the plaintiffs, thereby dismissing their writ.
JUDGMENT
ANSAH JSC.
Whereas the 1st plaintiff is a citizen of Ghana and a High Court Judge who proceeded on an administrative leave and has just resumed sitting as a judge, the 2nd plaintiff is also a citizen of Ghana and a Justice of the High Court of Ghana but currently is under suspension; both plaintiffs bring this action to invoke the original jurisdiction of this court by issuing a writ under article 130 (1) (a) and 2 (a) of the 1992 constitution for reliefs; they together filed an amended writ of summons on 28/01/16, for the following reliefs, namely:
A declaration that the decision of the 1st defendant on 16th December 2015, which is contained in letters dated 8th and 11th January, 2016, purporting to place the plaintiffs on “half salary with immediate effect”, is inconsistent with and in contravention of Article 127(5) of the 1992 Constitution and therefore unconstitutional, null and void.
On 26th April, 2016, this court struck out the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants from the suit and they thus ceased to be parties there to.”
The plaintiffs’ statement of case:
In accordance with the rules of court, the plaintiffs filed their statement of case explaining why they invoked the original jurisdiction of this court pursuant to Article 130(1)(a) and 2(1)(b) of the 1992 Constitution for the reliefs endorsed on the Writ invoking the Original Jurisdiction of this Court which were, as follows:
i. A declaration that the decision of the 1st defendant on 16th December, 2015, which is
contained in letters dated 8th and 11th January 2016, purporting to place the plaintiffs on “half salary with immediate effect” is inconsistent with and in contravention of Article 125 (5) of the 1992 Constitution and therefore unconstitutional null and void.
ii. A declaration that the decision of the 1st defendant on 16th December, 2015 which is
contained in letters dated 8th and 11th January, 2016 purporting to stop the payments to the plaintiffs of all their “allowances except rent”, is inconsistent with and in contravention of Article 127 (5) of the 1992 Constitution and therefore unconstitutional null and void.
iii. An order nullifying the above named decisions by the 1st defendant taken on the 16th of December, 2015 and which are contained in letters dated 8th and 11th January, 2016.
iv. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant, its assigns, privies, servants agents, etc, and in particular the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th defendants from impl