2022
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
A citizen sought declarations in the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction that the longstanding practice of placing the description “Chief Justice” with the officeholder’s name on writs of the Circuit and High Courts is unconstitutional under the Preamble, Articles 1 and 125, that justice emanates from the people rather than the Chief Justice, and that Order 2 Rule 3(1) of C.I.47 mandating conformity to Form 1 is unconstitutional. The Defendants argued misjoinder of the Chief Justice, invoking Article 88(5) and prior cases. Writing for the Court, Amadu JSC rejected misjoinder, explaining the Chief Justice’s administrative role under Article 125 and the Courts Act, and held that the writ’s Coat of Arms and “Republic of Ghana” signify justice administered in the name of the Republic. The Court found the Plaintiff’s assertions speculative, distinguished Tsikata (No.1), and dismissed all reliefs, holding the practice and C.I.47 provisions constitutional.
AMADU JSC:-
INTRODUCTION
1.My Lords, by writ issued pursuant to Articles 2(1)(b) and 125 of the 1992 Constitution and Order 2 Rule 3(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, (C.I.47), the Plaintiff has invoked the original jurisdiction of this court and seeks the following reliefs:-
“(1) A declaration that the practice whereby the description “CHIEF
JUSTICE” followed by the name of the occupant of the office of Chief Justice which appears on every writ of summons issued in Ghana is wrongful, unlawful, unconstitutional, inconsistent with and in contravention of the Preamble, Article 1 and Article 125 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana and ought to cease forthwith.
(2) A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of the Preamble,
Article 1, Article 2(1) and Article 125 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana Justice emanates from the people of Ghana and therefore the indication given on writs of summons issued in Ghana that it is the Chief Justice from whom Justice emanates is a continuing constitutional aberration which ought to be halted for its inherently unconstitutional nature and for its gross violation of the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.
(3) A declaration that Order 2 Rule 3(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure)
Rules, 2004 (C.I.47) requiring every writ to conform to Form 1 of the Schedule to C.I.47 is wrongful, unlawful, unconstitutional, inconsistent with and in contravention of Article 1 and Article 125 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.
(4) SUCH FURTHER ORDER(S) as the Honourable Court may deem fit.”
While the above reliefs appear conceivably trivial in substance, yet at least in form, they provoke interesting legal issues which demand determination by this court, the original jurisdiction having been properly invoked.
2.In the joint memorandum of issues set down for determination, the parties formulated and settled on the following:-
“1. Whether or not the Chief Justice is a necessary party to the suit?
2. Whether or not on a true and proper interpretation of Article 125(1)
and Article 1(1) of the 1992 Constitution, the practice whereby the name and office of the Chief Justice appears on every writ of summons issued in the Republic, is unconstitutional?
3. Whether or not Order 2 Rule 3(1) of the High Court Civil Procedure
Rules, 2004 (C.I.47), which requires every writ of summons to conform to Form 1 of C.I.47, should be struck down as null and void?”
3.In our view, the first issue require