SUMAILA BIELBIEL vs. ADAMU DARAMANI & OR [2011]DLSC4096

Date	2011-07-04
Suit No.	WRIT NO. J1/2/2010
Citation No.	[2011]DLSC4096

BROBBEY JSC (PRESIDING)

ANSAH JSC

OWUSU (MS) JSC

DOTSE JSC

YEBOAH JSC

BONNIE JSC

ARYEETEY JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

A BAMFO (MRS) JSC

YONNY KULENDI WITH EGBERT FAIBILLE JNR FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT /APPELLANT

DR. RAYMOND ATUGUBA FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

SYLVESTER WILLIAMS (PSA) FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT.

[2011]DLSC4096
																																						<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" >SUMAILA BIELBIEL<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ADAMU DARAMANI &amp; OR<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[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">

WRIT NO. J1/2/2010&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 4TH JULY, 2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>YONNY KULENDI WITH EGBERT
FAIBILLE JNR FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT /APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>DR. RAYMOND ATUGUBA FOR
THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

SYLVESTER
WILLIAMS (PSA) FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT.<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

BROBBEY
JSC (PRESIDING), ANSAH JSC, OWUSU (MS) JSC, DOTSE JSC, YEBOAH JSC, BONNIE JSC,
ARYEETEY JSC, GBADEGBE JSC, AND A BAMFO (MRS) JSC<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

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

</div>GBADEGBE
JSC:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>On 30 March 2010 the
plaintiff caused the writ herein to issue claiming the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>“1. A declaration that on a true and
proper interpretation of articles 97(1) and 94(2)(a) ADAMU DARAMANI, also known
as ADAMU DARAMANI-SAKANDE; ADAMU DARAMANI SAKANDE; ADAMU SAKANDE, who holds a
British Passport and therefore “owes allegiance to a country other than Ghana”
is acting in contravention and in continuous violation of the 1992 Constitution
for as long as he continues to sit in the Parliament of Ghana.<o:p></o:p>2. Any consequential orders the
Supreme Court may deem meet.”<o:p></o:p>In the statement of case
filed by the plaintiff, he raised by himself without waiting for the defendant
to be served with the processes initiating the action herein what he described
as an anticipatory legal objection to the jurisdiction of this court to inquire
into the claims contained in the writ. Although the procedure adopted by the
plaintiff was quite unusual; for it is the defendant who ordinarily raises an
objection to the jurisdiction of the court, we allowed the parties to address
us on the said question of jurisdiction. Indeed, as was anticipated by the
plaintiff, the defendant did subsequently file an objection to the jurisdiction
of the court. The parties having submitted to us their respective positions on
the question whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to determine the
action herein, the matter was adjourned for us to pronounce on the said question.
<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;We are called upon in this ruling to determine
the jurisdictional question. It is settled that when the question of
jurisdiction is raised before any court, the court must proceed to determine it
before proceeding to inquire into the claim and or any other matter before it
including pleas that may result in the disposal of the action without it being
heard on the merits. One such plea is res judicata. So fundamental is the plea
of the absence of jurisdiction that once it is raised the court is disabled
from exercising its jurisdiction in the matter except to pronounce on whether
it has jurisdiction in the matter. This has often been described as “the
jurisdiction to determine the question of jurisdiction” or simply the
jurisdictional question. In the case of Bimpong Buta v General Legal Council
[2003-2004] SCGLR 1200, at page 1215 Sophia Akuffo JSC made the following statement on the question of jurisdiction:<o:p></o:p>“Since by his suit the plaintiff has
sought to invoke the original jurisdiction of the court, we must, of necessity,
ascertain whether or not our jurisdiction under articles 2(1) and 130(1)(a) has
been properly invoked, even though the fourth defendant (at the time in the
person of Hon Papa Owusu Ankumah per his counsel, Hon Mr. Ambrose Dery, the
Deputy Attorney General) withdrew at the hearing of the action on&nbsp; 20 January 2004 ( with the approval of the
court), a notice of preliminary objection to our jurisdiction, which he had
earlier on filed. In other words, does the plaintiff’s writ properly raise any
real issues of interpretation or enforcement of the Constitution that can only
be resolved by this court exercising its original jurisdiction? Jurisdiction is
always a fundamental issue in every matter&nbsp;
that comes before any court and, even if it is not&nbsp; questioned by any of the parties, it is
crucial for a court to advert its mind to it to assure a valid outcome. This is
more so in respect of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, which has been
described as special.”<o:p></o:p>See: Wilkinson v Barking Corporation [1948]1KB 721 at 725.<o:p></o:p>In my opinion, having had
the said question of jurisdiction proceed to argument, the only issue that we
now have to determine is whether the plaintiff’s writ and the accompanying
processes disclose any issue that turns on the provisions of articles 2(1) and
130(1) of the 1992 Constitution such as to invoke the original jurisdiction of
this court.&nbsp; I commence the consideration
of this question with a reference to the said articles of the Constitution.<o:p></o:p>