SUMAILIA BIEBIEL (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT) vs. ADAMU DARAMANI (DEFENDANT/APPELLANT) [2010]DLCA7846

Date	2010-03-18
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/84/2010
Citation No.	[2010]DLCA7846

AKAMBA JA

MARFUL-SAU JA

HONYENUGA JA

MR. YONNY KULENDI FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

DR. RAYMOND ATUGUBA FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2010]DLCA7846
																																						<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" >SUMAILIA BIEBIEL<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>ADAMU DARAMANI<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO. H1/84/2010&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; DATE:
18TH MARCH, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
YONNY KULENDI FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

DR.
RAYMOND ATUGUBA FOR THE PLAINTIFF/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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

AKAMBA
JA, MARFUL-SAU JA, HONYENUGA JA<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>MARFUL-SAU, JA: This
appeal raises one fundamental issue, which is whether or not the claim of the
Plaintiff/Respondent in suit No.AHR 35/90 at the High Court (Fast Track
Division) is an election petition, or enforcement action? If it is an election
petition then on the authority of Yeboah
v. J.H.Mensah (1998-99) SCGLR 492, then the proper forum is the High Court.
On the other hand should the respondent claim be held to be an enforcement
action under article 2 of the 1992 constitution then the forum obviously ought
to be the Supreme Court. What then is the respondent claim before the
court?&nbsp; The respondent writ is endorsed
with the following reliefs, namely:<o:p></o:p>1.A
declaration that the defendant is a holder of a British passport and therefore
owes allegiance to a country other than Ghana and is therefore disqualified
from holding the office of Member of Parliament of the Republic of Ghana.<o:p></o:p>2.An
injunction against the defendant restraining him from holding himself out as a
Member of Parliament and compelling him to vacate his seat in parliament.<o:p></o:p>3.
Costs.<o:p></o:p>4.
Any other reliefs as to this honourable court may deem meet.<o:p></o:p>The
question is does these claims amount to an election petition? In addressing the
issue I must state that the Supreme Court has in a chain of decisions defined
what an election petition is. In the New
Patriotic Party v. National Democratic Congress
and others (2000) SCGLR 461 at page 472, Bamford-Addo JSC in answering the
question what constitute an election petition delivered as follows:<o:p></o:p>‘’It is any dispute as to the validity of a particular
election which is raised on an election petition and which is decided by a
court having jurisdiction to determine the same, namely the High Court as provided
in section16(1)(2) of the Representation of the People Law, 1992 (PNDCL 284)’’<o:p></o:p>It
is evident that the Representation of the People Law, to be referred in this
ruling simply as Law 284 does not define election petition. However assistance
has always been sought from specific provisions in the Law. Section 16 of the
Law states thus:<o:p></o:p>‘’16(1) The validity of an election to Parliament may be
questioned only by a petition brought under sections 17 to 26.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (2) An
election petition shall be presented before the High Court for hearing.<o:p></o:p>It is also provided in section 20(1) (d) of Law 284 that<o:p></o:p>‘’20(1) The election of a candidate shall be declared
void on an election petition if the High Court is satisfied<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (d) That
the candidate was at the time of the election a person not qualified or a
person disqualified for election.<o:p></o:p>The
combined effect of sections 16 and 20 of Law 284 in my considered opinion
simply connotes that an election petition is any action commenced in court,
particularly after the declaration of election result, to determine the
validity of an election on various grounds including allegations of
disqualification or ineligibility of a Member of Parliament. There is no doubt
that the reliefs being sought by the respondent in this case, particularly
relief 1 and 2, seek to challenge the validity of the Defendant/ Appellant’s
election as a Member of Parliament for the Bawku Central constituency of Ghana
in the 2008 general elections. I am also of the opinion that in a case such as
this one need not look at the reliefs alone but also the pleadings as well as
the consequential effect of the writ issued. In his statement of claim, the
respondent pleaded at paragraphs 10 and 11 the following:<o:p></o:p>‘’10.
The plaintiff also states that the defendant intended to perpetuate a further
fraud on his constituents, the government authorities in Ghana and the good
people of Ghana by representing himself, holding himself out, making Statutory
Declaration and subscribing to Oaths as a person who does not owe allegiance to</main>