GH - REPUBLIC v. HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EX PARTE LARYEA

JUDGMENT OF AMUA–SEKYI J.S.C.

Amua–Sekyi J..S.C. delivered the ruling of the court. The applicant, Paul Laryea, offered himself as a candidate in the Kinka Electoral Area in Accra in elections due to be held under the Local Government Law, 1988 (P.N.D.C.L. 207). On the day the election was to take place, a report appeared in the Ghanaian Times newspaper that he had been disqualified from standing for the election and that fresh nominations had been called for. He took out a writ in the High Court, Accra, against: (i) the National Commission for Democracy; (ii) the Accra City Council; and (iii) the District Secretary, Accra. On being served with the writ, the defendants raised three preliminary objections, namely:

“ (a) the action ought to have been commenced by the filing of an election petition under regulation 46 of the District Assembly Elections Regulations, 1988 (L.I. 1396);

(b) the National Commission for Democracy was not a legal entity and therefore the defendant should have been the Attorney-General who was entitled to one month’s notice of intention to commence the action under the State Proceedings (Amendment) Decree, 1969 (N.L.C.D. 352); and

(c) the Accra Metropolitan Authority was also entitled to a month’s notice of intention to commence the action under section 97 of P.N.D.C.L. 207.”

After hearing arguments, Wuaku J.S.C. sitting as an additional judge of the High Court, upheld the several objections and dismissed the action.

[p.101]

The applicant has now come to this court to ask for the following reliefs:

"(a) an order of certiorari to quash the ruling of Wuaku J.S.C.;

(b) an order of prohibition to stop the election;

(d) an order re-listing the High Court suit for hearing before another judge."

The ground given for seeking these reliefs is that of error on the face of the record.

The law as we understand it is that certiorari will lie to quash the decision of a court on the ground of error on the face of the record if such error goes to jurisdiction, or is so obvious as to make the decision a nullity. By jurisdiction is meant, of course, the power or authority of the court or judge to give a decision on the issue before it; and, in this regard, the correctness or otherwise of the decision is irrelevant: for, if there is no jurisdiction, the decision will be quashed although it be right. Where, as in this case, jurisdiction is not in issue, th