NANA ADDO DANKWA AKUFO-ADDO, DR. MAHAMUDU BAWUMIA AND JAKE OTANKA OBETSEBI-LAMPTEY vs. JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA, THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION AND NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS (NDC) [2013]DLSC2710

NANA ADDO DANKWA AKUFO-ADDO, DR. MAHAMUDU BAWUMIA AND JAKE OTANKA OBETSEBI-LAMPT... [2013]DLSC2710

Date	2013-02-05
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J1/6/2013
Citation No.	[2013]DLSC2710

ATUGUBA J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

ANSAH J.S.C.

ADINYIRA (MRS) J.S.C.

OWUSU (MS) J.S.C.

DOTSE J.S.C.

ANIN-YEBOAH J.S.C.

BAFFOE-BONNIE J.S.C.

GBADEGBE J.S.C.

AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) J.S.C

PHILIP ADDISON (WITH MS. GLORIA AKUFFO FRANKDAVIS ALEX QUAYNOR AKOTO AMPAW KWAME AKUFFO NANA ASANTE BEDIATUO

GODFRED DAME YEBOAH EGBERT FAIBILLE JNR. AND PROF. KEN. ATTAFUAH) FOR THE PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS.

TONY LITHUR (WITH HIM MARIETTA BREW APPIAH OPPONG AND DR. ABDUL AZIZ BAASIT BAMBA) FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.

JAMES QUASHIE IDUN (WITH HIM ANTHONY DABI AND STANLEY AMARTEIFIO) FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.

TSATSU TSIKATA (WITH HIM SAMUEL CODJOE AND BARBARA SERWA ASAMOAH) FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.

[2013]DLSC2710
																																						<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" >NANA ADDO DANKWA
AKUFO-ADDO, DR. MAHAMUDU BAWUMIA AND JAKE OTANKA OBETSEBI-LAMPTEY<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA, THE
ELECTORAL COMMISSION AND NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS (NDC)<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. J1/6/2013&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:
5TH FEBRUARY,
2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>PHILIP ADDISON (WITH MS. GLORIA AKUFFO, FRANKDAVIS,ALEX
QUAYNOR, AKOTO AMPAW,KWAME AKUFFO, NANA ASANTE BEDIATUO, GODFRED DAME YEBOAH,
EGBERT FAIBILLE, JNR., AND PROF. KEN. ATTAFUAH)&nbsp;
FOR THE PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS.<o:p></o:p>TONY LITHUR (WITH HIM MARIETTA BREW APPIAH OPPONG AND DR.
ABDUL AZIZ BAASIT BAMBA) FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>JAMES QUASHIE IDUN (WITH HIM ANTHONY DABI AND STANLEY
AMARTEIFIO) FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.<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">

TSATSU TSIKATA (WITH HIM SAMUEL CODJOE
AND BARBARA SERWA ASAMOAH) FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:150%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>GBADEGBE,JSC;&nbsp; Read the ruling of the court as follows:<o:p></o:p>We have before us
in these proceedings three consolidated applications relating to pre-trial
discovery in the matter herein. While two such applications are for further and
better particulars directed at the petitioners by the 1st and 2nd
respondent, the petitioners also seek against the 2nd respondent an
order for interrogatories. By rule 68 (3) (d) of CI 16, the Supreme Court Rules
as amended by CI 74, a petition is required to include facts on which the
petitioner relies on and in our thinking the facts to be contained in the
petition have the same objective as those contained in a statement of claim and
consequently it is right that discoveries be available in relation to them.It
repays for this purpose to quote rule 68(3) (d) that is expressed as follows:<o:p></o:p>“The petition shall state the facts relied on,
to be verified by affidavit and the law in support of the petition”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;As the applications with which we are
concerned in this ruling deal with requests for further and better particulars
and interrogatories that are terms commonly associated with pleadings in the
common law jurisdiction, it is in our thinking beneficial that we draw upon
practice books for guidance. It does appear to us that the framers of the rules
of this Court envisaged &nbsp;a gap in the
rules&nbsp; regulating the practice and
procedure in the Supreme Court &nbsp;by making
a provision to that effect in rule 5 of C I 16. In this regard, we think that
the current rules of procedure of the High Court in our jurisdiction
particularly Order 11 rule 12 and Order 22 of the High Court ( Civil Procedure
) Rules, CI 47 are beneficial to us by way of guidance as to the appropriate
practice to prescribe in the course of our original jurisdiction. It is to be
observed, however, that where the rules of this Court prescribe a different
procedure then it supersedes the applicable rules of the High Court. One such
rule is Rule 69A of CI 16 as amended by CI 74.That rule, unlike the procedure
available in the High Court does not make an application for particulars to be
preceded by a request to the other party. It provides thus:<o:p></o:p>“The
Respondent may apply to the Court for further and better particulars of the
petition on filing the answer”<o:p></o:p>As
the law maker is presumed to know the
current state of the law at the time of making CI 74, it is clear that the
provisions of Order 11 rule 12(6) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, CI
47 that makes an application for particulars to be subsequent to a request to
the other side is not intended to apply in the cases where the request is made
in proceedings before us. Accordingly, in considering the applications before
us, reference would only be made to practice books or the existing practice in
the High Court in situations not expressly provided for by CI 16.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In Aitkin’s Court Forms, 2nd
Edition, and Volume 32(1985 Edition), it is provided at paragraph 58 at page 50
as follows:<o:p></o:p>“The function of particulars is to carry into
operation the overriding principle that the litigation between the parties and
particularly at the trial should be conducted fairly, openly, and without
surprises, and incidentally to reduce costs, but the more usual purpose of
particulars is to make the opponent define precisely, and narrow, the issues
and allegations in his pleadings on which he intends to rely at the trial.”<o:p></o:p>