[2000]DLSC2348 • March 8, 2000 • Supreme Court •
JOSEPH SAM vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
The plaintiff, Joseph Sam, initiated a constitutional action challenging the validity of Section 15 of the Divestiture of State Interests (Implementation) Law, 1993 (P.N.D.C.L. 326), alleging it was inconsistent with Articles 140(1) and 293(2) and (3) of the 1992 Constitution. The Attorney-General was sued as the government's legal representative. The Divestiture Implementation Committee and one of its officers applied to be joined as co-defendants, asserting that Section 15 granted them indemnity and thus they were necessary parties to the suit.
read moreAMPIAH, J.S.C.: This is an application by the applicants herein, DIVESTITURE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE and EMMANUEL AMUZU AGBODO for an order joining them as Co-Defendants in the case, “JOSEPH SAM VS. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SUIT NO.5/98) now pending in this Court.” The first applicant is “the agency of the Government for the implementation of all Government policies in respect of divestiture programmes”, and the Second applicant is a member and an officer of the first applicant Committee. On or about 8th September, 1998, the Plaintiff in the above-named Suit i.e. Suit No. 5/98 invoked the original jurisdiction of this Court by issuing a Writ for — “A declaration that Section 15th of the Divestiture of State Interests {implementation} 1993 P.N.D.C.L. 326} is inconsistent with or in Contravention of the provisions of Articles 140 (1) and 293 (2) and (3) of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana and to that extent it is null and void. This action is against the A...