KOFI BOATENG & ORS vs THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION & ANOR
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP, JUSTICE NICHOLAS M. C. ABODAKPI (J)
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves an application by the Electoral Commission of Ghana for a 12-month extension to operationalize Act 699, which extends voting rights to Ghanaians living abroad. The Commission had failed to comply with a previous court order to implement the law, citing leadership challenges and other priorities such as creating new regions. The respondents argued that granting the extension would encourage non-compliance with court decisions. The court, considering the evidence and the renewed determination of the Commission to comply, granted the 12-month extension. The judge relied on ORDER 80 Rule 4 of C.I. 47/04, which empowers the court to extend time for actions to be taken. The court also awarded costs of GH¢8,000.00 against the Electoral Commission in favor of the respondents. The decision highlights the court's discretion in granting extensions, the consideration of institutional changes over time, and the balance between enforcing compliance and allowing reasonable accommodations for implementation of court orders.
The motion paper in this application filed on 30/01/2019 has the request for the Relief Respondent/Applicant is seeking.
The Electoral Commission, (herein after referred to as applicant) is asking for an extension of time for a period of twelve months to operationalize Act 699. The affidavit in support, which has been deposed to by the chairperson of the E. C. , shows that they are aware of the judgment of this Court (differently constituted) as in EXHIBIT ‘A’ annexed.
And the fact that applicant has been ordered to operationalise the law that will extend voting rights to all Ghanaians living outside.
The deposition shows that on 17/12/2018, the time line given for the applicant to comply with the judgment has lapsed.
In other words, applicant, who has filed this application on 30/01/2018, admits that as at 17/12/2018, the time to comply with the judgment had lapsed.
The reasons given for the failure to act within time, include:
1. The leadership challenge the applicant faced, which affected decision making at the Commission.
And therefore, the committee which has to be constituted to operationalise the law was not established.
2. The applicant averred that it had to carry out the assignment of creating six new regions, and this affected what should have been done in respect of the Court order/judgment.
3. The deposition is also to the effect that, the leadership challenge, has been resolved by the reconstitution of the applicant/commission and an implementation committee with its chairperson, has been established, to work on how the court order could be given effect.
The above are essentially the reasons I have identified.
And the applicant, then prays for twelve months to comply.
On the other hand, respondents contended that the application is alien to the rules of court.
And when granted, it will amount to encouragement of losing parties to choose when and how to comply with decisions of the courts, and in the process, frustrate the victorious party in the litigation.
On the reasons given for non-compliance, it has been contended, the applicant as an institution continued to run.
And for more than nine months it has been reconstituted, with appointment of new officers to replace others who have left for one reason or the other.
It has been stated that the applicant organized a referendum on creation of new regions, but did not prioritise the implementation of Act 699, which had been passed since 2006. It was pointed out that it was 31