THE REPUBLIC vs ATTORNEY GENERAL & 2 ORS. EX-PARTE: GORDON LOTSU AND GORDON LOTSU VRS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP SIR DENNIS ADJEI J. A, SITTING AS AN ADDITIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGE
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The applicant sought a mandamus order to compel the Ghanaian Attorney General to enforce a £20 million judgment by the UK High Court, claiming a 10% commission from it. The Attorney General opposed, citing no duty under Article 88 of the Constitution to enforce such judgments. The court dismissed the suits as without merit, stating no public duty was imposed on the Respondents to enforce foreign judgments for private individuals.
This is a consolidated suit filed by the applicant to compel the Respondent to pursue and secure the judgment sum awarded in his favour by the High Court in the United Kingdom.
The applicant in suit number HRCM 5/2016 is praying the Court to issue an order for mandamus to compel the respondents to pursue on his behalf a ten percent commission of Twenty million British Pounds sterling paid to the former Mau mau fighters in Kenya in June 2013. The facts of the case as disposed to in an affidavit in support of the applicants affidavit are that the applicant in the High Court UK sued the Commissioner of Police in the suit entitled Gordon Lotsu V. Commissioner of Police in the Metropolis, London and Others with claim No. HQ 09X05678 & others.
The applicant asserts that judgment was delivered in his favour and on his return to Ghana he reported to the government to assist him to enforce the said judgment on his behalf to enable him to procure his ten percent commission on the facts in suit No. HRCM/268/15 are that the government has failed to assist him to recover the judgment debt in the sum of twenty million pounds he obtained against the Commissioner of Police in Suit/claim nos HQ 09X05 678 and others.
In effect, the two suits are on the same subject matter except that the suit no. s HRCM/5/015 is on the commission payable on the judgment debt entered in favour of Mau Mau and suit no. HRCM 268/15 is on the judgment sum awarded in the suit.
The Attorney General opposes the two suits on the grounds that the article 88 of the 1992 Constitution which the applicant’s application is grounded does not create any right in the Attorney-General to exercise on behalf of the applicant and furthermore, there is no right in the applicant to enforce the performance of that duty.
Article 88 of the Constitution which is the foundation of the applicant’s suit provides thus:
“(1) There shall be an Attorney-General of Ghana who shall be a Minister of State and the principal Legal adviser of the Government.
The Attorney-General shall discharge such other duties of a legal nature as may be referred or assigned to him by the President or imposed on him by this Constitution.
The Attorney-General shall be responsible for the initiation and conduct of all prosecutions of Criminal Offences.
All offences prosecuted in the name of the Republic of Ghana shall be at the suit of the Attorney General or any other person authorized by him in accordance with any law.
The