SAMUEL OSEI BOATENG vs. NATIONAL MEDIA COMMISSION AND BERIFI AFARI APENTENG [2012]DLSC2683

Date	2012-05-09
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J1/1/2012
Citation No.	[2012]DLSC2683

ATUGUBA AG .C.J (PRESIDING)

AKUFFO J.S.C.

DATE-BAH J.S.C.

ANSAH J.S.C.

ADINYIRA (MRS) J.S.C.

OWUSU J.S.C

BAFFOE-BONNIE J.S.C.

GBADEGBE J.S.C.

KOTO-BAMFO (MRS) J.S.C

AKWESI OPOKU FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

AKOTO – AMPAW FOR THE DEFEDANTS.

[2012]DLSC2683
																																						<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" >SAMUEL OSEI BOATENG<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NATIONAL
MEDIA COMMISSION AND BERIFI AFARI APENTENG<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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J1/1/2012&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 9TH MAY, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>AKWESI OPOKU FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

AKOTO – AMPAW FOR THE DEFEDANTS.<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">

ATUGUBA AG .C.J
(PRESIDING), AKUFFO J.S.C., DATE-BAH J.S.C., ANSAH J.S.C., ADINYIRA (MRS)
J.S.C., OWUSU J.S.C, BAFFOE-BONNIE J.S.C., GBADEGBE J.S.C.,KOTO-BAMFO (MRS) J.S.C.<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">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>ATUGUBA, J.S.C:<o:p></o:p>I have had the advantage
of reading the characteristic masterly opinion of my brother Dr. Date-Bah
J.S.C. I agree with much of it and its conclusion. <o:p></o:p>However, I perpetually
disagree, with global respect to him, in so far as he holds that this court’s
enforcement jurisdiction does not arise unless an issue of interpretation
arises. The original jurisdiction of this court stems from articles 2 and 130
of the Constitution.&nbsp; One of its most
essential components is the enforcement of the Constitution as an item of
jurisdiction in its own right and though it may arise jointly with an issue of
interpretation its existence and invocation cannot be inextricably linked to
the incidence of an interpretative issue, as a sine qua non prerequisite. <o:p></o:p>It is common knowledge
that the original jurisdiction of this court has been conferred in almost
identical language in the 1969 and 1979 past Constitutions of Ghana and has
been consistently interpreted in the same manner by the Supreme Court.<o:p></o:p>Thus in Edusei v. Attorney-General [1996-97]
SCGLR 1 at 51 Kpegah JSC recalled the earliest authoritative construction of
the original jurisdiction of this court thus:<o:p></o:p>“&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In the case of Gbedemah v. Awoonor-Williams (1970) 2 G&amp;G 438 at 439 the Court of Appeal, sitting as the Supreme
Court, stated the parameters within which
the original and exclusive jurisdiction can be invoked thus:<o:p></o:p>“It seems to
us that for a plaintiff to be able to
invoke the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court his writ of
summons or statement of claim or both must prima facie raise an issue relating
to:<o:p></o:p>(1)&nbsp;&nbsp; the
enforcement of a provision of the Constitution; or<o:p></o:p>(2)&nbsp;&nbsp; the interpretation of a
provision of the Constitution; or<o:p></o:p>(3)&nbsp;&nbsp; a question whether an
enactment was made ultra vires Parliament, or any other authority or person by
law or under the Constitution.” (e.s)<o:p></o:p>The above dictum was approved and applied in Tait v. Ghana Airways Corporation (1970) 2 G&amp;G 527 where the
plaintiff’s case was held to be essentially one of wrongful dismissal and
rejected the contention of counsel for the plaintiff that the court was being
called upon to interpret and enforce articles 138(b) and 140(2) of the 1969
Constitution.”<o:p></o:p>So entrenched is this
construction that in Edusei v.
Attorney-General (1997-98) 2 GLR 1 at 43 Acquah JSC (as he then was)
robustly said:<o:p></o:p>