Try asking the following...
RULING
ATUGUBA, JSC
On 20/3/2013 the plaintiffs issued a writ J1/10/2013 against the Attorney-General claiming as follows:
“1. A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 4 and 11(4A)(5)(6) of the 1992 Constitution, Akuse which formed an integral part of the erstwhile Osudoku Local Council constitutes part of the Greater Accra Region, vide the Greater Accra Region Law, 1982, PNDCL 26 as amended by the Greater Accra Region (Amendment) Law, PNDCL 28 and Executive Instrument 30 of 1969.
2. An order directing the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development and the Lands Commission to re-define the existing boundary map for the Greater Accra Region to conform precisely with PNDCL 26 as amended by PNDCL 28.
3. A declaration that LI 1983 of 19th October, 2010, which seeks to place Akuse within the Eastern Region of the Republic of Ghana is in violation or inconsistent with the letter and spirit of Articles 4, 11(4)(5)(6) and PNDCL 26 as amended by PNDCL 28 and to the extent of the inconsistency is null and void.)
4. Any further reliefs or directions which the court may deem appropriate to give full effect or to enable effect to be given to the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution in this matter generally and particularly Articles 4(1) and 11(4)(5)(6) of the Constitution.”
Upon application the 2nd to 6th defendants were joined by this court to the said writ.
However on 7/3/2014 the 2nd, 5th and 6th defendants filed the following preliminary objection to the said writ:
“TAKE NOTICE that the above-named 2nd, 5th and 6th defendants intends at the hearing of the instant action, to rely on the following preliminary objection viz:
The very question or issue raised for consideration by the instant action has already been determined by the Court in a case binding on plaintiffs and therefore, the suit is incompetent and must be dismissed in limine.
AND TAKE NOTICE that the grounds of the objection are as follows:
1. The substance of the Plaintiffs’ action seeks to raise substantially the same questions as were adjudicated upon in the case of Charles Mate Kole & Azago Kwesitsu I vrs Electroal Commission & Attorney-General [2012] SCGLR 244.
2. The subject matter (status of Akuse whether as an Osudoku or Manya Krobo town) is the same.
3. The judgment of this Honourable Court in the case of Charles Mate Kole & Azago Kwesitsu I vrs. Electoral Commission & Attorney-General (supra) being a constitutional matter is binding on all c