Constitutional Law -
invoked the original
jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court - for interpretation and
enforcement of Articles 284 and
286 - Leave to amend statement
- Whether the
Attorney-General's
representation of 1st defendant
breaches Article 88 of the
Constitution -
HEADNOTES
In the application before
the court, the 1st and 3rd
defendants are praying for leave
to amend their joint statement
of case. The plaintiffs and 2nd
defendant are opposed to the
application. Plaintiffs
contended that the application
is not being made in good faith
since the report of 2nd
defendant has always been
available to defendants.
Plaintiffs further say that the
intended amendment will lead to
delay in the determination of
the suit and take them by
surprise.
HELD :- In have considered the grounds for
the application for leave to
amend and find merit in them.
Accordingly, the application
succeeds and same is granted.
STATUTES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
Supreme Court Rules 1996,
(CI 16). Rule 49
CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
YEBOA V BOFOUR [1971] 2
GLR 199 CA.
TSIKATA V CHIEF JUSTICE &
AG [2001-2002] SCGLR 437.
BOOK REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
DELIVERING THE LEADING JUDGMENT
PWAMANG, JSC:-
COUNSEL.
SYLVESTER WILLIAMS, CHIEF
STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE 1ST
AND 3RD DEFENDANTS/
APPLICANTS.
OSMAN ALHASSAN FOR THE
PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS.
COSMOS AMPEGUO FOR THE 2ND
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.
CORAM: PWAMANG, JSC
SITTING AS A SINGLE JUDGE
PWAMANG, JSC:-
In the substantive suit,
the plaintiffs invoked the
original jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court for interpretation
and enforcement of Articles 284
and 286 of the Constitution,
1992 among other provisions of
the Constitution. The parties
have filed their respective
statements of case. In the
application before the court,
the 1st and 3rd defendants are
praying for leave to amend their
joint statement of case.
Applicants stated that after a
close study of the report of the
2nd Defendant on the
back of which plaintiffs mounted
their action, the Defendants
have decided to amend their
statement of case to place the
whole of their response before
the court for determination.
The plaintiffs and 2nd
defendant are opposed to the
application. Plaintiffs
contended that the application
is not being made in good faith
since the report of 2nd
defendant has always been
available to defendants.
Plaintiffs further say that the
intended amendment will lead to
delay in the determination of
the suit and take them by
surprise. Their lawyer referred
the court to the case of
YEBOA V BOFOUR [1971] 2 GLR 199
CA.
The 2nd defendant has
taken a technical objection to
the application by arguing that
the intended amendment is in
defence of the 1st defendant
whose personal conduct in the
issuance of Government of Ghana
bonds is in question. 2nd
defendant says it will amount to
a breach of Article 88 of the
Constitution for the
Attorney-General who is the
legal advisor to the Government
to defend the 1st defendant in
the circumstances of this case.
They referred the court to the
case of TSIKATA V CHIEF
JUSTICE & AG [2001-2002] SCGLR
437. The plaintiffs quickly
associated themselves with the
submissions of 2nd defendant on
Article 88 of the Constitution.
In responds to the
submissions on Article 88
learned Counsel representing the
Attorney-General, Chief State
Attorney, Sylvester Williams Esq
argued that the role the 1st
defendant's played in the
issuance of the Government of
Ghana bonds was in his capacity
as a public officer so it is the
Attorney-General who ought to
represent him in court. He
further stated that if 2nd
defendant and plaintiff claim
that the Attorney-General's
representation of 1st defendant
breaches Article 88 of the
Constitution, then they have to
properly invoke the jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court duly
constituted for a declaration to
that effect.
I am in agreement with Mr
Sylvester Williams that the
allegation of breach of Article
88 of the constitution ought to
be properly raised in accordance
with the provisions of the
Constitution and the Rules of
the Supreme Court 1996, (CI 16).
Consequently I will over rule
that objection.
On the substantive grounds
on which the plaintiffs opposed
the application, my view is that
the purpose of Rule 49 of CI
16 is to enable parties to
put their whole case before the
court for a complete and final
determination and avoid
multiplicity of suits which will
be the result if amendments are
disallowed without just cause.
The case of YEBOA V BOFOUR
(supra) that plaintiffs
referred to states those
amendments may be allowed at any
stage of a case and even on
appeal.
In have considered the
grounds for the application for
leave to amend and find merit in
them. Accordingly, the
application succeeds and same is
granted.
G. PWAMANG
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
COUNSEL
SYLVESTER WILLIAMS, CHIEF
STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE 1ST
AND 3RD
DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS.
OSMAN ALHASSAN FOR THE
PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS.
COSMOS AMPEGUO FOR THE 2ND
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.
|