Embattled James Quayson things Supreme Court to injustice against your pet


James Gyakye Quayson, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) Person in Parliament (MP) for Assin North in whose election has already been nullified by profit Court, and eventually prohibited by the Supreme Court from holding himself as a possible MP, has faulted the apex the courtroom for deciding an issue over which, according to your pet, it had no jurisdiction. Mr. Quayson in a review application to the Supreme Court to reverse its recent orders, argues that per a number of their own previous selections in cases similar to his, the Supreme Court rejected to adjudicate such election petition situations convinced which it was missing the jurisdiction over them.

Quayson cites a number of cases decided by the Supreme The courtroom to buttress his application, and proves that the 5-2 majority decision of the court provided on 13th Apr, 2022, which comprised orders of temporary injunction against your pet, has occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice against the people of Assin North and themselves. He avers that by the program for review, he or she was seeking to contain the Court to reverse what he / she believes are obvious and fundamental problems in the bulk ruling.

“That, among these errors, as I am encouraged and verily trust, this court supposed jurisdiction over a suit involving filing the effects of a Parliamentary election broken when this judge itself has recently decided on many occasions that it is short of jurisdiction over such a suit. ” The Substantial Court on September 13, 2022, approved an injunction use by Michael Ankomah-Nimfah, a constituent of Assin North, who had formerly invoked the original legal system of the Substantial Court to seek interpretation of article 94(2)(a) of the Constitution, to have Mr. Quayson controlled from holding him self as an MEGAPIXEL following orders by the High Judge in Cape Seacoast nullifying the political election on the schedule that Quayson placed Canadian citizenship at the time he or she filed to tournament it.

The Great Court concluded that the High The courtroom in Cape Shoreline had declared the election of Mister Quayson null and void, and, therefore allowing him to continue as an MP while a substantive constitutional concern ahead of the Court was yet to be determined “will be an indictment of the administration of justice”. But Quayson in the Assertion of Case, models out a amount of grounds for his review program, including that: The particular majority decision was in patent and fundamental error and violated article 129(3) of the Metabolism in assuming legislation over the perseverance of the quality of an Parliamentary selection and proceeding to grant the use for interim injunction.

The majority decision was in obvious and fundamental problem in failing to appreciate that the suit was at simple fact an attempt to enforce the judgements of the Excessive Court disguised as an invocation of the original legal system of the Substantial Court. The bulk decision was in patent and requisite error in approving an order of interlocutory injunction approaching the determination of the suit primarily based on a Excessive Court judgment and a tender High Judge interlocutory decision both of which, on their face, broken article 130(2) of the Constitution and, in the circumstance of the opinion, also violated part 20(d) of the Representation of Peoples' Law, 1992, PNDC Law 284.

Nearly all decision was in patent and requisite error in approving an order of interlocutory injunction approaching the determination of the suit when the particular Applicant was seeking by this application was for the execution of selections in the courts below and this error occasioned a gross losing the unborn baby of justice against him, Quayson; and this

The majority decision was at patent and fundamental error in granting an order of interlocutory injunction pending the willpower of the suit when the Customer (Ankomah-Nimfah) failed, knorke facie, to illustrate a legal or equitable right that ought to be protected by the court, thereby occasioning a gross losing the unborn baby of justice against him, Quayson.


Quayson cites a number of cases to point out to the Supreme Court docket from the own earlier positions, including the 1998-99 circumstance in which one Michael Yeboah sued JH Mensah, who had been chosen as MP for the Sunyani Far east Constituency in the then Brong-Ahafo Location. Yeboah had registered a writ invoking the original legal system of the Great Court claiming that JH Mensah was not qualified or competent to turn into a Participant of Parliament because of article 94(1)(b) of the 1992 Constitution, which provides that: “Subject to the provisions of this article, a person shall not be qualified to be a part of parliament unless ~

b) he is resident in the constituency for which he stands as a prospect for election to Legislative house or has existed there for a total period of no less than five years from the ten years immediately preceding the selection which is why he holders, or he hails from that constituency; ”. JH Mensah raised an primary objection to the action on the ground that Jordan Yeboah’s action was instituted in the wrong forum, hence incompetent. The Best Court upheld the objection relying on the provisions of section 16 of PNDCL 284 and article 99 of the Constitution and held that the validity of an election to Legislative house may be wondered only with a request presented to the High Court, not by a writ invoking the legislation of the Best Court.

Quayson also cites the situation of Bimpong-Buta vrs General Legal Authorities in which they claims Her Ladyship, Justice Sophia Akuffo provided a brief summary of how a Great Court views their original jurisdiction under both articles 2 and 130(1). “One of the four principles she claims is that:

“(4) Regardless of the manner in which they can be clothed, where the real issues arising from a writ brought under article 2 or 130(1) are not, in most cases, of such character as to be determinable entirely by the Great Court, but instead fall within a reason for action cognizable by any other court or conseil of competent legislation, this court will decline jurisdiction (cf Yiadom 1 sixth is v. Amaniampong [1981] GLR 3, SC; Ghana Pub Association v. Attorney-General (Abban Case), Best Court, Writ Simply no 8/95, 5 Dec 1995; reported in [2003-2004] SCGLR 250; Edusei (No. 2) sixth is v. Attorney-General supra [[1998-99] SCGLR 753 and Adumoa II sixth is v. Twum II [2000] SCGLR 165. ” (at pp 1216-1217, focus added). ”

This individual said Her Ladyship Sophia Akuffo proceeded to go on to achieve these conclusion:

“All in most, the bosse claimed, the pleadings, and the distribution filed in this matter amply show that the plaintiff’s action is no more than an ordinary civil suit splendidly arrayed in constitutional clothing. Within the circumstances, it is my view which our jurisdiction has not been properly invoked. The plaintiff’s bosse lie elsewhere and we cannot presume jurisdiction to suppose after it under our original legal system. The action must, therefore, be hit out. ”

Within yet another example he cites, Quayson said in the more recent situation of the “Republic v. High Courtroom, Ho, Ex zona Attorney-General; (Professor Maggie Kweku as well as others Fascinated Parties) Suit Simply no.: JS/21/2021, 5th The month of january 2021, the Best Court (comprising Appau, Marful-Sau, Torkonoo, Honyenuga, Amadu JJSC) kept, following Yeboah sixth is v. J. H. Mensah, that benefit Courtroom, exercising its human being rights enforcement legislation under article thirty-three of the Metabolic rate did not have jurisdiction to amuse reliefs which amounted to declaring a Parliamentary election incorrect. Appau JSC, providing the unanimous decision of the courtroom (Suit No.: JS/21/2021), said:

‘“The legislation as constitutionally and statutorily provided for and judicially considered at this time apex Court docket in a wide variety of decisions, would not permit the curious parties to include reliefs 1(f), 2 and 3 in the reliefs desired in their noticeable human rights action when these bosse were purporting to challenge the thanks election of Ruben Peter Amewu as the Member of Parliament Elect for the Hohoe Constituency.

 Inside the Yeboah versus. J. H. Mensah case supra, a case whose rate is similar to the minute matter before us, though factually different, the seasoned politician Mr. T. H. Mensah of blessed memory, was elected as the Member of Legislative house for the Sunyani East Constituency in the then Brong -Ahafo Region in the 1996 Parliamentary elections on the ticket of the modern Patriotic Party (NPP). On 25th March 1997, one Erina Yeboah caused a writ to be filed in this apex court, invoking the original legal system of the Court docket in words of articles 2, 94(1) and 130 of the Constitution, 1992 and rule forty-five of the Best Court rules, mil novecentos e noventa e seis [C. We. 16]. 

The individual claimed that Mister. J. H. Mensah had not been qualified or competent to become a Member of Parliament in conditions of article 94(1)(b) of the Metabolic rate, 1992. The accused, who denied plaintiff’s contention, raised a preliminary objection to the action on the ground that plaintiff’s action was incompetent, having already been instituted in a wrong forum. The particular Supreme Court maintained the objection on the floor that the Courtroom was not the proper forum for the action. This particular Court relied on the provisions of section 16 of PNDCL 284 and article 99 of the Constitution, in whose combined effect is that the quality of the election to Parliament may be questioned only by a petition offered to benefit Courtroom. ”

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post