MUSAH MUSTAPHA v. UNIVERSITY OF GHANA & THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ANSAH JSC (PRESIDING)
- BAFFOE BONNIE JSC
- GBADEGBE JSC
- AKOTO BAMFO (MRS) JSC
- BENIN JSC
- AKAMBA JSC
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure
2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, stating that the issues raised by the plaintiff do not necessitate constitutional interpretation. The court noted that such issues could be handled by lower courts, emphasizing the roles of different courts in interpreting and enforcing constitutional provisions.
GBADEGBE JSC:
The action herein concerns the announcement by the first defendant of road user charges on some of the roads leading into and outside its campus effective 01 February 2014. The plaintiff, a student of the University of Ghana (1st defendant herein), caused the instant action to issue claiming among others a declaration that the said charges amount to the imposition and or levying of taxation contrary to the provisions of article 174(1) of the 1992 Constitution and therefore unconstitutional for which reason we are invited in the exercise of our exclusive jurisdiction to declare same as null and void. The parties to the action herein have in compliance with the rules of practice and procedure of this court filed their respective statements of caseas well as the memorandum of issues for our consideration. At the last adjourned hearing, in view of the point raised by the first defendant regarding the propriety of the invocation of our original jurisdiction, we took time to consider the said point as it is essentially a jurisdictional point that we must first consider before proceeding to determine the matter herein on its merits.
We have carefully considered the processes before us in the matter herein and come to the opinion that the issues raised for determination in the action herein are not constitutional in nature as article 174 (1) on which the plaintiff’s claim to an order of declaration of the unconstitutionality of the road user fees does not present us with any issue of interpretation. The words by which the said provision of the constitution are expressed are quite plain and indeed, in the briefs submitted to us by learned counsel on behalf of the parties, there appears not to be any genuine dispute as to the meaning of the article such as to require us and not any other court to give effect to it by enforcing its provisions against the first defendant. Pausing here, we make reference to an earlier decision of this court in the case ofBimpong Buta v General Legal Council [2003-2004] SCGLR, 1200 at 1249 wherein the learned Justice Dr Date-Bah JSC( as he then was) observed in a manner that is relevant to the question with which we are concerned in this delivery as follows:
“It is clear that none of these reliefs sought by the plaintiff raises a genuine issue of interpretation or enforcement of the Constitution within the meaning established by the case-law. “
It is observed that the plaintiff in the action herein has also made dema