BAAFOUR KWAME FANTE ADUAMOA II AND 6 OTHERS vs. NANA GYAKORANG ADU TWUM II [2000]DLSC6381

Date	2000-02-08
Suit No.	SUIT NO. 3/94
Citation No.	[2000]DLSC6381

WIREDU J.S.C (PRESIDING)

BAMFORD-ADDO (MRS.) J.S.C.

AMPIAH J.S.C.

ADJABENG J.S.C

ACQUAH J.S.C

ATUGUBA J.S.C

AKUFFO (MS.) J.S.C.

MR. NUTIFAFA KUENYEHIA FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

DR. TWUM FOR THE DEFENDANTS

MR. AFRIFA GYASIE CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

[2000]DLSC6381
																																						<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" >BAAFOUR KWAME FANTE
ADUAMOA II AND 6 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA GYAKORANG ADU TWUM
II<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">

SUIT NO. 3/94&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 9TH
FEBRUARY 2000.<o:p></o:p>

MR.
AFRIFA GYASIE, CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>ACQUAH, JSC:&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>My
Lords, the original jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court by articles 2(1)
and 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution 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 <o:p></o:p>—&nbsp; the interpretation of a provision of the
Constitution or <o:p></o:p>— the
enforcement of a provision of the Constitution, or <o:p></o:p>—
a question whether an enactment was made ultra vires Parliament, or any other
authority or person by law or under the constitution. <o:p></o:p>See:
Gbedemah vrs. Awoonor-Williams, (1969) 2 G&amp;G 438 Tait, vrs Ghana Airways
Corporation (1970)2 G &amp; G 527, Yiadom vrs Amaniampong (1981) GLR 3 SC,
Edusei vrs Attorney-General (1996-97) SCGLR 1, Edusei vrs. Attorney General
(No.2) CM 21/96, 22nd April 1998 SC (unreported), Republic vrs. 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 and/or enforcement suit. For a large number of
actions which fall within specific causes of action can be presented in the
form of interpretation and/or enforcement actions. 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 1992 Constitution, damages for such violation,
and an order to recover his property.&nbsp;
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 vrs. Ghana Airways Corporation (1970) 2 G &amp; G 527 the plaintiff, a
pilot, was employed by the defendant in written service agreement dated 1st
January 1967.&nbsp; On 24th 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 29th
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 1969 Constitution (the equivalent of article 130(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution)
for <o:p></o:p>“(a) A declaration that his dismissal
from the employment of the defendant corporation communicated to the plaintiff
by letter dated 29th 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>(b) Consequential relief” <o:p></o:p>Article
138 of the 1969 Constitution dealt with the protection of public services,
while 140 dealt with appointments of public officers. The action of the plaintiff
was clearly one founded in employer-employee relationship, particularly that of
wrongful dismissal, and did not involve an enforcement and/or interpretation of
the provisions of the Constitution referred to. <o:p></o:p>Not
surprising therefore, the Supreme Court in refusing to assume jurisdiction,
said at page 529: <o:p></o:p>"We have already held that on its
construction and having regard to the issues settled, the plaintiff’s action is
essentially one of wrongful dismissal and does not, therefore, fall within the
ambit of article 106(1)(a)&nbsp;&nbsp; ...&nbsp; It is an action for wrongful dismissal under
the common law, which is part of the laws of Ghana ... Since our original
jurisdiction is limited to article 106, we are driven to the conclusion that
this court is not seised with jurisdiction to try this suit as a court of first
instance". <o:p></o:p>Now
where the main thrust of the action is not one of enforcement and/or
interpretation, and that the issue of interpretation, if it arises, is
ancillary to the determination of the claims of the parties</main>