MICHAEL YEBOAH v. JOSEPH HENRY MENSAH
1998
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- Hayfron-Benjamin, JSC. (Presiding)
- Ampiah, JSC.
- Kpegah, JSC.
- Acquah, JSC.
- Atuguba, JSC
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure
1998
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Supreme Court decision resolves whether a citizen’s constitutional enforcement action can be used to challenge the qualification and continued seating of an elected Member of Parliament. Michael Yeboah sued to declare Joseph Henry Mensah unqualified under Article 94(1)(b) to represent Sunyani East, alleging Mensah hails from Sunyani West and had not met residency requirements, and sought to enjoin him from sitting. Mensah, represented by Nana Akufo-Addo, raised a preliminary objection that the writ was in substance an election petition. The majority—Hayfron-Benjamin, Ampiah, Acquah, and Atuguba—held that Article 99(1) and PNDCL 284, Section 16, create a specific, exclusive High Court process for questioning the validity of parliamentary elections, including challenges to qualification under Section 20(1)(d). Applying the principle that parties must use the remedy and forum prescribed by law, the Court declined original jurisdiction and dismissed the writ. Kpegah, JSC dissented, advocating Supreme Court enforcement of Article 94 and finding Section 20(1)(d) unconstitutional.
C. HAYFRON-BENJAMIN, J.S.C.:
MR. JOSEPH HENRY MENSAH was on the 7th December, 1996 elected the Member of Parliament for the SUNYANI EAST Constituency in the nationwide Parliamentary elections. On the 25th February, 1997 the Plaintiff, Mr. Michael Yeboah, caused a writ to be filed in this Court invoking our original Jurisdiction in terms of Articles 2,94(1) and 130 of the Constitution 1992 and Rule 45 of the Supreme Court Rules 1996 (C.I. 16). The plaintiff claimed that MR. J.H. Mensah (Defendant) at the time of the election was not qualified or competent to become a Member of Parliament in terms of Article 94(1)(b) of the Constitution.
The Defendant, while admitting that he hailed from the SUNYANI WEST Constituency nevertheless contended that he was eligible for election to the seat for the SUNYANI EAST Constituency and had been validly elected as such Member of Parliament for the constituency. The Defendant further contended that the Plaintiff’s action was incompetent as having been instituted in the wrong forum as in substance the writ was an election petition. In the Defendant’s submission the writ was
“unmeritorious, frivolous, vexatious and abuse of the process of this Court”.
The Defendant further submitted that he would at the hearing of this writ raise a preliminary objection and gave substantial reasons for taking that preliminary objection. The objection was based on THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE LAW 1992 (P.N.D.C.L. 284) This Court therefore ordered the Preliminary objection to be set down formally. The gravamen of the preliminary objection was that the Plaintiff had dressed an election petition in the garb of a constitutional issue seeking in aid of his original writ the exercise of our enforcement powers. In my respectful opinion if that proposition is correct then the matter is covered by authority and the objection must succeed in limine.
In his defence, the Defendant had averred that this writ was part of an "orchestrated attempt" by some three constituents to unseat him in Parliament and that two of these "players" had properly presented an election petition in the High Court, Sunyani. On the 12th May, 1997 the High Court, Sunyani dismissed their petition:
“"Upon a preliminary point of law that raised by the Defendant to the effect that the action was Statute-barred”.
The Defendant does not appear to have made much capital of this decision. However it will be seen from the provisions of section 19 of P.N.D.C.L. 284 that by that d