NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL [1993]DLSC4364

Date	1993-12-23
Suit No.	[1992-93] 2 G B R 767 – 768
Citation No.	[1993]DLSC4364

ADADE JSC

ABBAN JSC

AMUA-SEKYI JSC

AIKINS JSC

AMPIAH JSC

PETER ALA ADJETEY FOR THE APPLICANT.

MARTIN AMIDU DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1993]DLSC4364
																																						<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>ATTORNEY-GENERAL<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">

[1992-93] 2 G B R 767 – 768&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 23 DECEMBER 1993<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>PETER
ALA ADJETEY FOR THE APPLICANT.<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">

MARTIN
AMIDU, DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL, FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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">

ADADE
JSC, ABBAN JSC, AMUA-SEKYI JSC, AIKINS JSC, AMPIAH JSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>RULING:
On the 21/12/93 the plaintiffs filed a writ in this court, invoking our
original jurisdiction, asking for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>“(1) A declaration that the public
celebration of the overthrow of the legally constituted Government of Ghana on
the 31 December, 1981, and the financing of such celebration from public funds
is contrary to the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution and more
particularly to articles 3(3), (4), (5), (6) and (7), and 35(1) and 41(b)
thereof;<o:p></o:p>(2) An order directing the Government
of Ghana to cancel all preparations for the celebration of the overthrow of the
legally constituted Government of Ghana on 31 December 1981, aforesaid and to
refrain from carrying out any such celebration financed from public funds.”<o:p></o:p>On
the same date they filed an application for an interim injunction asking this
court, in substance, to restrain the Government of Ghana from “all activities
and preparations made or being made towards the celebration of the overthrow of
the democratically elected Government of Ghana on December 31, 1981 as
announced”.<o:p></o:p>The
present proceedings are in respect of the application for interim injunction.<o:p></o:p>From
the affidavits filed and the arguments of counsel, it is clear to us that a
ruling on this application one way or the other is bound to prejudice the
hearing of the substantive action; indeed it will render unnecessary any
further proceedings in the main action.<o:p></o:p>In
the circumstances we are of the considered opinion that this application should
be adjourned to be taken along with the substantive suit.<o:p></o:p>As
this matter is of extreme national importance, it is imperative that it be
finally heard and determined as a matter of urgency before 31/12/93.<o:p></o:p>Accordingly
we are referring it to the Chief Justice to empanel a court to take the
substantive action next week, on a date to be notified.<o:p></o:p>The
defendants are hereby ordered to file their statement of case, if so advised,
by 3.00 pm tomorrow, 24/12/93, and send a copy direct to Mr Peter Adjetey or
leave it at his office or residence. It is unnecessary that any further process
be filed after the defendant’s statement of case.<o:p></o:p>The
costs of this application will be costs in the cause.<o:p></o:p>(sgd)
Adade JSC.<o:p></o:p>(sgd)
Abban JSC.<o:p></o:p>(sgd)
Amua-Sekyi JSC.<o:p></o:p>(sgd)
Aikins JSC.<o:p></o:p>(sgd)
Ampiah JSC.<o:p></o:p>Application
referred to Chief Justice accordingly.<o:p></o:p>S
Kwami Tetteh, Legal Practitioner.<o:p></o:p>Damages
- Quantum - Fatal accidents - Loss of dependency – Award to compensate for
pecuniary loss to dependants, not as solatium.<o:p></o:p>Damages
– Assessment – Appeals from – Appellate court entitled to substitute its award
where basis of award not specified.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiffs, parents of a 13-year old pupil of a Middle School, Form 2,
instituted an action for damages for the negligence of the defendants resulting
in the death of the pupil in a motor accident. The 1st defendant was the owner
and driver of the vehicle insured at the time by the 2nd defendant. It was
found as a fact that the deceased was a brilliant pupil with a bright future.
The trial judge gave judgment for the plaintiffs and awarded them a global sum
of ¢600,000. The plaintiffs appealed against the award on the grounds that the
award was woefully inadequate.<o:p></o:p>Held:
<o:p></o:p>(1)
The award of damages was at the discretion of the trial judge. Once the basis
of the award had been shown, unless the basis is wrong, an appellate court
would have no justification for interfering with the award. In the instant case
even though the learned trial judge made certain findings upon which he made
his award, it was not clear how he arrived at the bulk figure. Even though he
did not accept wholly the claim for funeral expenses, he did not specify how
much he accepted. Besides he did not accept wholly the extent of services
rendered by the deceased to his parents and grandmother but also omitted to
quantify how much each dependant had lost, for which he made the global award. In
the circumstances the appellate court would substitute its award.<o:p></o:p>