MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WATERVILLE HOLDINGS (BVI) LTD & ALFRED AGBESI WOYOME
2016
SUPREME COURT
Ghana
CORAM
- Anin Yeboah JSC
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure
2016
SUPREME COURT
Ghana
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolved around the legal standing and procedural propriety in enforcing a judgment related to unconstitutional payments made by the Attorney-General. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's application to examine the 3rd Defendant on oath, despite objections regarding the plaintiff's locus standi and the procedural correctness of certain affidavit depositions. The judgment underscores the importance of ensuring constitutional compliance in public payments and the citizens' right to invoke the courts jurisdiction to enforce constitutional provisions.
JUDGMENT
ANIN YEBOAH JSC:-
The plaintiff/Applicant herein has moved this court on notice for leave to examine the 3rd Defendant/Respondent herein pursuant to the order of this court dated the 19th October 2016.
To fully appreciate the basis for this ruling I have to fully set out the facts leading to this application which warranted this action against the three defendants for several reliefs which are not necessary to be repeated in this ruling for sake of brevity. The action was brought under Article 2 of the 1992 Constitution which obviously invoked our original jurisdiction for the interpretation and enforcement of constitutional provisions, precisely Article 181 thereof.
On or about 14/06/2013, this court unanimously granted several reliefs sought on the writ. The plaintiff/Applicant herein was dissatisfied with parts of the judgment and therefore applied for review of the judgment of the ordinary bench above referred to. This court on 29/07/2014 reviewed its decision of the ordinary bench by a unanimous decision by a panel of eleven Justices. It would be worthwhile to fully state the orders made by this Court which has culminated in this application.
BY COURT:
“By unanimous decision of this court, the application for review succeeds and is hereby granted. Consequently, the applicant is entitled to have the decision of the ordinary bench reviewed in the following terms:
Reliefs 9, 10, 13 and 14 are granted. Reliefs 6 and 7 are subsumed in the main ruling of the court dated the 14 June, 2014.
We therefore make the following declarations and orders:
(1) A declaration that the then Honourable Attorney-General , the 1st Defendant Respondent , in this case in paying or ordering the payment by the Republic of Ghana of claims by the 3rd Respondent and Austro-Invest, premised upon a purported foreign international agreement dated 26 April 2006, and other international business agreements arising out of the said agreements with the Government of Ghana which were never laid before parliament for approval is inconsistent with and in contravention of Article 181(5) of the constitution 1992 in terms of the interpretation already rendered by the ordinary bench and are accordingly declared null, void and without effect whatsoever.
(2) A declaration that the High Court which purported to and assumed jurisdiction in the action commenced by the 3rd Respondent (as plaintiff) on 19 April 2010 in suit No RPC/152/10 against the 1st Respondent claiming damages for