[2009]DLHC16644 • March 13, 2009 • High Court
MR. SHERIFF NII OTTO DODOO vs THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION, SHIRLEY AYORKOR BOTCHWAY
The petitioner filed an election petition on 23 January 2009 against the Electoral Commission and Shirley Ayorkor Botchway, together with a document titled “Notice of payment of security for costs.” He personally paid ¢20,000 or GH¢2 as security. The 1st respondent challenged the petition on the ground that under section 182 of the Representation of the People Law, 1992 (PNDCL 284) as revised, the amount of security for costs had to be determined by the High Court, not unilaterally fixed by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the Statute Law Revision Commissioner lacked power under the Laws of Ghana Revised Edition Act, 1998 (Act 562) to amend the substance of section 182, and therefore his payment was valid. Portion of judgment: “On the 23rd day of January 2009, the petitioner herein filed a petition against the Respondents... On that same date, the petitioner filed a process which he termed Notice of payment of security for costs... the cost of ¢20,000 or GH¢2 paid by the petitioner did not meet the requirement of the law...”
read moreRULING On the 23rd day of January 2009, the petitioner herein filed a petition against the Respondents seeking various reliefs against the Respondents. On that same date, the petitioner filed a process which he termed Notice of payment of security for costs. The 1st Respondent was served with the petition and Notice of payment of security for costs on 26th January, 2009 and after entering conditional appearance, the 1st Respondent filed a motion to strike out the petition on grounds of non-compliance with section 18(2) of PNDCL 284 as amended. In arguing the motion counsel submitted that by the provisions of the Representation of the people Law 1992, (PNDC Law 284) as amended, the cost which a petitioner was supposed to pay as security upon the filing of a petition is supposed to be determined by the High Court and not the petitioner and hence the cost of ¢20,000 (or GH¢2) paid by the petitioner did not meet the requirement of the law and that, for that reason, the whole pe.....