NDP v. Electoral Commission
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE GEORGE K. KOOMSON
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Law
- Administrative Law
- Human rights Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The High Court of Ghana (per Justice George K. Koomson) addressed the Electoral Commission’s motion to strike out an application by the 2nd and 3rd Applicants, including Nana Konadu Agyemang-Rawlings, challenging the Commission’s rejection of their presidential nomination forms. While the court rejected the Commission’s contention that Regulation 9(5) of C.I. 94 confines such challenges to post-election petitions and reaffirmed that constitutional human rights enforcement under Article 33 may be pursued pre-election, it held that the Applicants’ originating motion was procedurally incompetent because it improperly combined judicial review (Order 55) with fundamental human rights enforcement (Order 67) in one process despite their distinct procedural regimes. The court treated alleged affidavit defects (hearsay and exhibit certification) as curable irregularities. It struck out the application and awarded costs of GH₵10,000 to the Commission.
The main issue requiring my adjudication in this application is as to whether or not the application filed by the Applicants/Respondents (hereinafter referred to as “Applicants”) for the enforcement of fundamental human rights and for judicial review properly invokes the jurisdiction of the Court.
Let me set out, very briefly, the material facts giving rise to this application before me.
The 1st Respondent/Applicant (hereinafter called the “1st Respondent”) is the body mandated by law to, among other things, organize elections in Ghana.
In the month of September, 2016, the 1st Respondent requested interested political parties and individuals who are interested in contesting election for the high office of President of the Republic of Ghana to pick nomination forms from its offices with the intention of being nominated to contest the December 7th, 2016, presidential elections.
The 2nd and 3rd Applicants, desirous of contesting the presidential election, picked up nomination forms, filled same and had them presented to the 1st Respondent through its appropriate officers designated for that purpose.
The nomination forms submitted by the 2nd and 3rd Applicants were subsequently rejected by the 1st Respondent as being invalid.
Not satisfied with the decision of the 1st Respondent, the Applicants have filed an Originating Notice of Motion for the enforcement of fundamental human rights and for judicial review.
It is against this application that the 1st Respondent has filed the present application to have it struck out or dismissed as it does not properly invoke the jurisdiction of the Court.
The 1st Respondent, though the Motion Paper did not disclose, referred to Order 81 rule 2(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 (C. I. 47), which provides that: “An application may be made by motion to set aside for irregularity any proceedings, any step taken in the proceedings or any document, judgment or order in it, and the grounds of it shall be stated in the notice of the application. ”The above stated rule was discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of REPUBLIC v. HIGH COURT, KOFORIDUA; EX PARTE ANSAH-OTU &ANOR (KORANS BUILDING SOLUTIONS LTD INTERESTED PARTY)[2009] SCGLR 141. The Court, at page 149 stated: “[A]nd as further stated by rule 2(2) of Order 81 of C. I. 47, the party affected by the non-compliance with the rules of Court, may apply to the trial court to set aside the proceedings for irregularity, provided an application was made