2012
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Ghana Medical Association sought to review and prohibit Justice Dzakpasu of the High Court from proceeding with a case involving an interim injunction against their planned strike. The Supreme Court ruled against them, asserting that the High Court had jurisdiction despite any procedural errors, found no real likelihood of bias, and emphasized the corrective rather than nullifying nature of procedural errors in the court's jurisdiction.
ANSAH JSC.
This is an application by the Ghana Medical Association for judicial review of the decision of the High Court, Accra, presided over by His Lordship Mr. Justice Dzakpasu, to prevent him from proceeding with the ruling on the interlocutory injunction and the substantive matter pending before it intituled: ‘Chris Archman-Akumey v Ghana Medical Association & others’. In other words, the application is seeking an order to prohibit the aforementioned judge from ruling on an application for an order of interim injunction and hearing the substantive matter in the suit before him.
The affidavit stating the facts and background of the application:
The facts grounding the application are contained in the supporting affidavit filed on 8-12-2011. In it, the applicant deposed that on 24 October 2011, the plaintiff, respondent herein, issued a writ of summons and statement of claim against the Ghana Medical Association (hereinafter called the applicant), for certain reliefs and followed it with an application for interlocutory injunction restraining the applicant from embarking on a strike of any kind. On 1st November 2011, the judge stated in court he would like to determine the matter on its merits.
Subsequently, the chronology of events was that on 8th November, 2011, the applicants filed an affidavit in opposition to the application for interim injunction rather belatedly, whereupon the plaintiff respondent filed a supplementary affidavit in response thereto. Then the applicant filed a statement of defence in which it raised a preliminary objection to the application for injunction and also challenged the capacity of the plaintiff respondent to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter.
The court heard both counsel for the parties argue for and in opposition to the legal objection thus raised. After arguments from counsel the judge was alleged to have stated that ‘if he ruled in the plaintiff/respondent’s favor in the preliminary matter, he would go ahead immediately and rule on the interlocutory injunction application.’ He then adjourned proceedings to 9th December 2011 for his ruling.
The applicant deposed further in his affidavit, he construed the plaintiff’s substantive claim before the court to be that it was to enforce an alleged breach of human rights; he recited the procedure for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under the Human rights provisions in the constitution, 1992, in the affidavit in support of application for