THE NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY (NPP) & OTHERS v. IBRAHIM FELIX & OTHERS

AYEBI, JA

1. This interlocutory appeal arose out of a ruling of the High Court Kumasi dated 6th June 2015. In the suit itself, the plaintiffs/respondents claimed the following reliefs:

a) An order of the Court setting aside the consent/compromise judgment entered by the High Court, Accra dated the 29th day of August 2014, in the suit entitled “Kwabena Owusu-Ansah and 2 Others vrs New Patriotic Party & Or. with suit No. BIMSC 634/2014 on the grounds of fraud through misrepresentation, willful deceit, collusion and conscious violation of rules of natural justice and of court.

b) A declaration that the plaintiffs being the validly elected constituency Executives/officers of the New Patriotic Party for the Manhyia North Constituency in the Ashanti Region of the Republic of Ghana remain as such Executives/officers for all purposes relating to their respective offices.

c) An order of injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, privies and workmen from denying the plaintiffs the enjoyment and exercise of their rights and the performance of their duties as officers/Executives of the 1st defendant’s Political Party for the Manhyia North Constituency including their participation in the 2016 parliamentary primaries of the 1st defendant’s Political Party.

d) Cost including solicitor’s fees

e) Any further order as the Honourable Court may deem fit.

2. Upon service of this writ of summons on all the defendants, the 2nd to 4th defendants/appellants herein entered a conditional appearance and filed on 10th June 2015 an application to dismiss the action based on the inherent jurisdiction of the court and Order 2 r.3(2) and r.5; Order 9 rule 8, and Order 11 r.18(1)(d) of C.I. 47. The defendants/applicants therein attached a written submission to the application and at the hearing, relied on it. The counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents opposed the application in an oral submission. In its ruling dated 6th June 2014, the court dismissed the application in the first place for the violation of procedural convention and rules of court namely that the inherent jurisdiction of the court should not be invoked in the face of an express rule relating to the matter or specific situation and an application consequent upon the entry of a conditional appearance should be filed within 14 days. Further the court held that the application is incompetent and has no merit.

3. It is against this ruling that the defendants/appellants herein have appealed to this court to