April 5, 2022
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Supreme Court judgment arises from James Gyakye Quayson’s application to review orders made on 8 March 2022 in an original jurisdiction suit challenging his qualification under Article 94(2)(a) to contest and sit as Member of Parliament for Assin North. The Court, invoking Article 133(1) and Rule 54(a), reiterated that review lies only upon exceptional circumstances causing a miscarriage of justice. The record showed substituted service was properly effected by postings at Quayson’s residence, the High Court in Assin Fosu, and the Supreme Court, together with a Daily Graphic publication; Quayson’s counsel’s letter confirmed notice. The Court held that accepting service without publishing all filed process texts did not vary the order and was not arbitrary under Article 296. The hearing notice was a case management step for the interlocutory injunction application and did not abridge filing timelines. Service validation ran from the first publication (26 February), making 4 March the validation date; the application for review was dismissed.
TORKORNOO (MRS.) JSC:-
The 1st defendant in this action is the applicant herein. He isseeking a review of orders made by this court on 8th March 2022.The present application invokes the jurisdiction of the court created by Article 133 (1) of the 1992 Constitutionand Rule 54 of the Supreme Court Rules 1996, CI 16.
Article 133 provides in Article 133 (1)
The Supreme Court may review any decision made or given by it on such grounds and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by rules of court.
To this end,Rule 54 of the Supreme Court Rules 1996, CI 16 sets the following condition inter alia:
54. The court may review any decision made or given by it on any of the following grounds –
a. exceptional circumstances which have resulted in miscarriage of justice;
Background Facts
The plaintiff and 1st respondent to this application filed a Writ numbered J7/11/2020 invoking the original jurisdiction of this court on 24th January 2022.He sought the following reliefs against the defendants:
1.A Declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 94(2)(a) of the Constitution, 1992 of the Republic of Ghana at the time of filing his nomination form between 5th -9th October 2020 to contest the 2020 Parliamentary Elections for the Assin North Constituency, the 1st Defendant was not qualified as a member of Parliament.
2.A Declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 94(2)(a) of the Constitution, 1992 of the Republic of Ghana the decision of the 2nd Defendant to permit the 1st Defendant to contest Parliamentary Elections in the Assin North Constituency when the 1st Defendant owed allegiance to a country other than Ghana is inconsistent with and violates Article 94(2)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana 1992.
3.A Declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 94(2)(a) of the Constitution, 1992 of the Republic of Ghana, the election of the 1st Defendant as Member of Parliament for the Assin North Constituency was unconstitutional.
4.A Declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 94(2)(a) of the Constitution, 1992 of the Republic of Ghana the swearing in of 1st Defendant as Member of Parliament for the Assin North Constituency was unconstitutional, null and void and of no legal effect.
5.Any further Orders and/or Directions as the Court may deem fit to give effect or enable effect to be given to the Orders of the Court.
The plaintiff also filed an application for interl