ALl AND OTHERS vs. GUMAH AND ANOTHER [2002]DLHC1156

Date	2002-06-12
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2002]DLHC1156

QUAYE J

JOHN A NDEBUGRE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

AKOTO AMPAW FOR THE FIRST DEFENDANT.

E K MUSAH FOR THE SECOND DEFENDANT.

[2002]DLHC1156
																																						<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">ALl AND OTHERS<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">GUMAH AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, BOLGATANGA]<o:p></o:p>[2001-2002]
1 GLR 583<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>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JOHN
A NDEBUGRE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>AKOTO
AMPAW FOR THE FIRST DEFENDANT.<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">

E K
MUSAH FOR THE SECOND DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Quaye J. <o:p></o:p>The
four plaintiffs all hail from the Bawku East District in the Upper East Region
of Ghana. The first and the second plaintiffs are friends of the third
plaintiff while the third plaintiff and the fourth plaintiff are both members
of the Bawku East District Assembly. The third plaintiff in these proceedings
testified as the spokesman for the plaintiffs. He is the assemblyman for the
Widana Pulimakom electoral area; while the fourth plaintiff is the assemblyman
for the Sarabogo-Deiga electoral area. The first defendant was nominated by the
President of Ghana for approval by the Bawku East District Assembly as their
chief executive. The second defendant is the statutory body responsible for
conducting and supervising all public elections and referenda generally
throughout Ghana.<o:p></o:p>The
evidence led in this trial shows unambiguously that following the President’s
nomination of the first defendant, a meeting was held by the Bawku East
District Assembly on 17 May 2001. Among the items listed on the agenda for the
said meeting was the “confirmation of His Excellency, the President’s nominee
(Mr Abdul Rahaman Guma) for the post of district chief executive,” as evidenced
by exhibit 2 herein—the letter of invitation to the meeting issued on 11 May
2001. At the said meeting, the members present cast their ballots on the issue
and at the end thereof, the results were declared to be, 38 votes Yes, 38 votes
No and One rejected ballot as per exhibit A. The reference to exhibit A is
reference to the official declaration of results: Confirmation of appointment
of district chief executive form of the Electoral Commission. On the face of
exhibit A the total number of members of the Bawku East District Assembly was
78. Out of this number 77 members were said to have attended the meeting on 17
May 2001 and cast their votes as the total figure of votes counted and declared
would seem to confirm. Accordingly, the first defendant was recorded on exhibit
A to have obtained 49.3 percent of the total votes cast. In evidence the third
plaintiff said the votes were by secret ballot. The one rejected ballot was a
vote cast at the poll. It was however rejected because there was no mark or
writing on it to show whether the member whose ballot it was, was in favour or
against the approval of the first defendant for the post. After the results had
been declared, the third plaintiff requested for, and was given a copy of the
documented declaration of the results, exhibit A. The third plaintiff asserted
that there was no tension, neither were there any disturbances within the Bawku
East District between 17 May 2001 and 27 May 2001. He was however aware of a
petition that was forwarded to the Electoral Commission cautioning them on the
declaration of the results of the ballot held on 17 May 2001. He maintained
that the issues raised in the said petition, exhibit 5 were resolved before 27
May 2001.<o:p></o:p>In
their statement of claim, the plaintiffs further raised the issue that the
first defendant failed to poll 50 per cent of the first ballot held on 17 May
2001 and was in consequence disqualified from a second ballot. Lastly, it
appears the plaintiffs are very much disquieted about what they complained of
as the continued absence of a district chief executive for the Bawku East
District which “is affecting the plaintiffs personally as well as collectively
as citizens and inhabitants of the district.”<o:p></o:p>It
was upon the above pleadings and evidence that the plaintiffs endorsed their
writ with the following:<o:p></o:p>