ADUAMOA II vs TWUM II [2000]DLSC103

Date	2000-02-09
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2000]DLSC103

EDWARD WIREDU JSC

BAMFORD-ADDO JSC

AMPIAH JSC

ADJABENG JSC

ACQUAH JSC

ATUGUBA JSC

AKUFFO JSC

NUTIFAFA KUENYEHIA FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

DR SETH TWUM FOR THE DEFENDANT.

AFRIFA GYASIE

CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY

FOR THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

[2000]DLSC103
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">ADUAMOA II<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">TWUM II<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000]
2 GLR 409<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">Date:
9 FEBRUARY 2000<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>NUTIFAFA
KUENYEHIA FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.DR SETH TWUM FOR THE
DEFENDANT.AFRIFA GYASIE, CHIEF STATE
ATTORNEY, FOR THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.__________________________________________________________________CORAM:EDWARD WIREDU, BAMFORD-ADDO,
AMPIAH, ADJABENG, ACQUAH, ATUGUBA AND AKUFFO JJSC__________________________________________________________________JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Acquah JSC. <o:p></o:p>Delivered
the ruling of the court. My Lords, the original jurisdiction vested in the
Supreme Court under articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the Constitution, 1992 to
interpret and enforce the provisions of the Constitution, is a special
jurisdiction meant to be invoked in suits raising genuine or real issues of
interpretation of a provision of the Constitution, or the enforcement of a
provision of the Constitution or a question whether an enactment was made ultra
vires Parliament, or any other authority or person by law or under the
Constitution: see Gbedemah v Awonoor-Williams. (1969) 2 G&amp;G 438; Tait v
Ghana Airways Corporation (1970) 2 G &amp; G 527 Yiadom I v Amaniampong [1981]
GLR 3, SC; Edusei v Attorney-General [1996-97] SC GLR 1, on review Edusei v
Attorney-General (No 2) [1998-99] SGCLR 753 and Republic v Special Tribunal; Ex
parte Akosah [1980] GLR 592, CA.<o:p></o:p>This
special jurisdiction is not meant to usurp, or to be resorted to in place of
any of the jurisdictions of a lower court. In other words, where our said
jurisdiction has been invoked in an action which properly falls within a
particular course of action at a lower court, this court shall refuse to assume
jurisdiction in that action, notwithstanding the fact that it has been
presented as an interpretation enforcement suit or both. For, a large number of
actions which fall within specific causes of action can be presented in the
form of interpretation or enforcement actions or both. For example, if someone
goes to farm or commences building on another person’s land, the latter can
file a suit at the Supreme Court invoking its original jurisdiction for a
declaration that the said entry unto his land constitutes an invasion of his
right to his property under article 18 of the Constitution, 1992, damages for
such violation, and an order to recover his property. But it is quite clear
that such a suit is really a land suit falling within the jurisdiction of the
lower court with the authority to handle claims of the value of the land in
dispute.<o:p></o:p>In
Tait v Ghana Airways Corporation (supra) the plaintiff, a pilot, was employed
by the defendant in a written service agreement dated 1 January 1967. On 24
April 1967, a DC-3 plane he was piloting from Kumasi to Accra crashed in a
field near Takoradi with a loss of a passenger. He was suspended “without
prejudice” and an enquiry into the cause of the crash was held. The report of
the enquiry was presented to the Government and his suspension was withdrawn.
But in a letter dated 29 May 1970, signed by the managing director of the
defendant, he was informed that his service with the defendant were no longer
required and ordered to vacate his official bungalow. Dissatisfied with the
termination of his services, he invoked the original jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court under article 106(1)(a) of the Constitution, 1969, (the
equivalent of article 130(1)(a) of the Constitution, 1992) for:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“(a)
A declaration that his dismissal from the employment of the defendant
corporation communicated to the plaintiff by a letter dated 29 May 1970
purporting to be signed by the managing director of defendant corporation, is
wrongful and invalid under the Constitution, 1969, in particular articles 138
and 140 there of. <o:p></o:p>