MR. SHERIFF NII OTTO DODOO vs THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION, SHIRLEY AYORKOR BOTCHWAY [2009]DLHC16644

MR. SHERIFF NII OTTO DODOO vs THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION, SHIRLEY AYORKOR BOTCHWA... [2009]DLHC16644

Date	2009-03-13
Suit No.	SUIT NO. A E. 11/2009
Citation No.	[2009]DLHC16644

HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU J.

MR. TONY LITHUR

MR. DARBY

[2009]DLHC16644
																																						<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" >MR. SHERIFF NII OTTO DODOO<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION, SHIRLEY AYORKOR BOTCHWAY<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&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;&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; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: -0.35pt;">

<a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a>SUIT NO. A E. 11/2009&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: 13TH MARCH, 2009<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: -0.35pt;">

MR. TONY LITHUR FOR PETITIONER/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

MR. DARBY FOR RESPONDENT/APPLICANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU J. <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: black; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: -0.35pt;">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;On the 23rd day
of January 2009, the petitioner herein filed a petition against the Respondents
seeking various reliefs against the Respondents.&nbsp; On that same date, the petitioner filed a
process which he termed Notice of payment of security for costs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The 1st
Respondent was served with the petition and Notice of payment of security for
costs on 26th January, 2009 and after entering conditional
appearance, the 1st Respondent filed a motion to strike out the petition
on grounds of non-compliance with section 18(2) of PNDCL 284 as amended.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In arguing the motion
counsel submitted that by the provisions of the Representation of the people Law
1992, (PNDC Law 284) as amended, the cost which a petitioner was supposed to
pay as security upon the filing of a petition is supposed to be determined by
the High Court and not the petitioner and hence the cost of ¢20,000 (or GH¢2)
paid by the petitioner did not meet the requirement of the law and that, for
that reason, the whole petition is a nullity and must therefore be struck out.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In response, counsel for
the petitioner argued that S.18(2) of PNDCL 284 was amended by the Statute Law
Revision Commissioner and that the Statute Law Revision Commissioner did not
have the power under the law which created his office to amend the substance of
any law . Counsel therefore submitted that the payment of the GH¢2 cost by the
petitioner did not infringe the provisions of PNDCL 284 and that the petition
is properly before the court.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Indeed, the Statute Law
Revision Commissioner was appointed under section 1 of the Laws of Ghana
(Revised Edition) Act 1998, Act 562 to prepare a Revised Edition of all Acts in
force on 1st January 2005 and also of all subsidiary legislation in
force on 1st January 2005.<o:p></o:p>In order to prepare or
carry out the basic function imposed on him by section 1 of the Law, section 2
of Act 562 sets out certain things which the Commissioner ought to do and those
things which he may do in exercise of his discretion.&nbsp;&nbsp; Section 2(1) (a) (b) (k) (l) of Act 562 imposes
a mandatory duty on the Commissioner whereas the other subsections of section
2(1) allows the Commissioner to exercise his discretion in the discharge of the
duty imposed on him by section 1.&nbsp;
Section 3(1) states that, the function of the Commissioner contained in
section 2, does not include any power to make alteration or amendment in the
matter or substance of an Act.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;So the question to answer
is whether by the current provision in section 18(2) of the Revised Edition of
the Representation of the People Law, 1992 PNDCL 284, which came into force on
the 31st December 2004, the Commissioner can be said to have flouted
section 3(1) of&nbsp; Act 562.&nbsp; In other words, is it right to say that the
Statute Law Revision Commissioner altered or amended the matter or substance of
PNDCL 284 as it existed before the Revised Edition came into force on 31st
December 2004 in the light of the changes in section 18(2) of the L aw.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It cannot be said, in my view
that the powers given to the Commissioner forbids him from making amendments to
Acts which were in existence before the 1st of January 2005. Indeed
section 2(1) (b) of Act 562 provides that “the Commissioner shall make
adaptations of and amendments to Acts in order to bring those Acts into
conformity with the Constitution of Ghana, 1992”.&nbsp; It is only alterations and amendments which
affects the “matter or substance” of an Act that the Commissioner cannot undertake
or do in my opinion.<o:p></o:p>