SUMAILA BIELBIEL v. ADAMU DARAMANI & OR

GBADEGBE JSC:

On 30 March 2010 the plaintiff caused the writ herein to issue claiming the following reliefs:

“1. A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of articles 97(1) and 94(2)(a) ADAMU DARAMANI, also known as ADAMU DARAMANI-SAKANDE; ADAMU DARAMANI SAKANDE; ADAMU SAKANDE, who holds a British Passport and therefore “owes allegiance to a country other than Ghana” is acting in contravention and in continuous violation of the 1992 Constitution for as long as he continues to sit in the Parliament of Ghana.

2. Any consequential orders the Supreme Court may deem meet.”

In the statement of case filed by the plaintiff, he raised by himself without waiting for the defendant to be served with the processes initiating the action herein what he described as an anticipatory legal objection to the jurisdiction of this court to inquire into the claims contained in the writ. Although the procedure adopted by the plaintiff was quite unusual; for it is the defendant who ordinarily raises an objection to the jurisdiction of the court, we allowed the parties to address us on the said question of jurisdiction. Indeed, as was anticipated by the plaintiff, the defendant did subsequently file an objection to the jurisdiction of the court. The parties having submitted to us their respective positions on the question whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to determine the action herein, the matter was adjourned for us to pronounce on the said question.

We are called upon in this ruling to determine the jurisdictional question. It is settled that when the question of jurisdiction is raised before any court, the court must proceed to determine it before proceeding to inquire into the claim and or any other matter before it including pleas that may result in the disposal of the action without it being heard on the merits. One such plea is res judicata. So fundamental is the plea of the absence of jurisdiction that once it is raised the court is disabled from exercising its jurisdiction in the matter except to pronounce on whether it has jurisdiction in the matter. This has often been described as “the jurisdiction to determine the question of jurisdiction” or simply the jurisdictional question. In the case of Bimpong Buta v General Legal Council [2003-2004] SCGLR 1200, at page 1215 Sophia Akuffo JSC made the following statement on the question of jurisdiction:

**“Since by his suit the plaintif