NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY vs. ELECTORAL COMMISSION AND ANOTHER [1993]DLSC4246

Date	1993-08-17
Suit No.	(No 1) 1993 - 4 1 GBR 1- 153
Citation No.	[1993]DLSC4246

AIKINS JSC

PETER ADJETEY (WITH NANA AKUFO-ADDO AND ALEX QUAYNOR) FOR THE APPLICANTS.

[1993]DLSC4246
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ELECTORAL COMMISSION AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

(No
1) 1993 - 4 1 GBR 1- 153&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 17 AUGUST 1993<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

PETER
ADJETEY (WITH NANA AKUFO-ADDO AND ALEX QUAYNOR) FOR THE APPLICANTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>AIKINS JSC. This is an
application praying for an order of this court for interim injunction directed
to the Electoral Commission, lst defendant-respondent herein, restraining it
from holding the elections of district chief executives of the districts
scheduled by the lst defendant-respondent between 18th August 1993 and 30th
August 1993 pending the hearing and determination of the substantive writ No
11/93 filed today, 17 August 1993.<o:p></o:p>The application was filed
pursuant to article 134 of the Constitution, 1992 and Rule 60 of the Supreme
Court Rules 1970 (CI 13). Article 134 empowers a single justice of the Supreme
Court to exercise the power vested in the Supreme Court in civil matters not
involving the decision of the cause or matter before the Supreme Court. I am
satisfied that I have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this matter.<o:p></o:p>The writ filed by the
plaintiffs this morning is seeking two reliefs, namely:<o:p></o:p>“(a) a declaration that the holding by
the Electoral Commission of elections to the office of District Chief Executive
for each district between 18th August 1993 and 30th August 1993 is inconsistent
with and a contravention of the Constitution, specifically articles 242, 243
and 246 thereof, and is therefore unconstitutional, illegal and unenforceable.<o:p></o:p>(b) an order of injunction directed to
the Electoral Commission prohibiting and restraining it from holding elections
to the office of District Chief Executive for each district between 18th August
1993 and 30th August 1993.”<o:p></o:p>The contention of the
plaintiffs is that on 14 August 1993 the lst defendant-respondent issued a
statement directing the holding by the district assemblies of elections for the
office of district chief executives of the districts between 18 August 1993 and
30 August 1993. They contend that the holding of these elections is
inconsistent with and a contravention of the Constitution 1992, and that it is
in the public interest that, pending the hearing and determination of the
merits of the substantive writ, the lst defendant-respondent should be
restrained by an interim order of this court from holding the proposed
elections, as the holding of the said elections is potentially unconstitutional
and illegal. They urge further that if an order of restraint is not made by
this court the purpose of the plaintiffs-applicants’ writ will be defeated and
rendered wholly nugatory. It has been brought to my notice that the
defendants-respondents have been served with the necessary papers and have been
informed that this matter is due for hearing at one o’clock in the afternoon of
today, but there has been no appearance for defendants-respondents, and the
defendants-respondents have not thought it fit to be in court to defend the
case.<o:p></o:p>I have read the relevant provisions
of the Constitution affecting this case, and given due consideration to the
argument of counsel for the plaintiffs-applicants.<o:p></o:p>It is pertinent to note
that the Supreme Court is at the moment on vacation and will not re-open for
business until the beginning of October 1993, and as the said elections are
scheduled to take place between the 18th and 30th August 1993 I agree with
counsel for the plaintiffs-applicants that the purpose of their writ “will be
defeated and rendered wholly nugatory” if the order sought is not made.<o:p></o:p>In applications of this
nature the court will have to satisfy itself that the claim is neither
frivolous nor vexatious, and also that serious questions of law are involved in
the determination of the substantive case. Leading counsel for the
plaintiffs-applicants has urged that there is need for the status quo in this
writ to be preserved and I think I agree with him.<o:p></o:p>In reading the affidavit
of the plaintiffs-applicants, it is my view that a prima facie case has been
made by the plaintiffs-applicants to justify the grant of the relief they seek.<o:p></o:p>The governing principle
for consideration of applications of this nature, that is, for an interim
injunction, was aptly enunciated by the Court of Appeal in the case of
Vanderpuye v Nartey [1977] 1 GLR 423 at 432 when that court said:<o:p></o:p>“The governing principle should be
whether on the face of the affidavits there is need to preserve the status quo
in order to avoid irreparable damage to the applicant and provided his claim is
not frivolous or vexatious.”<o:p></o:p>

I agree with that court.
As I have said earlier a prima facie case has been made by the
plaintiffs-applicants, and there is no doubt in my mind that the claim in their
writ is neither frivolous nor vexatious. In my judgment, this is a case where
it is proper and fitting that the application for interim injunction sought
should be granted, and it is hereby granted. The Electoral Commission is hereby
prohibited and restrained from holding the proposed elections to the office of
District Chief Executive for each district between 18 August 1993 and 30 August
1993.<o:p></o:p></main>