THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, ACCRA EX PARTE; JOSEPH DANSO [2015]DLSC3023

Date	2015-01-22
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. JS/5/2015
Citation No.	[2015]DLSC3023

AKUFFO (MS) JSC (PRESIDING)

ANSAH JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

AKOTO- BAMFO (MRS) JSC

BENIN JSC

ASIEDU-BASOAH WITH ELIZABETH HASSAN FOR THE APPLICANT.

ANTHONY K. DABI FOR THE 2ND INTERESTED PARTY.

GARY NIMAKO-MARFO LED BY DR. POKU ADUSEI FOR THE 3RD 4TH AND 5TH INTERESTED PARTIES.

[2015]DLSC3023
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>HIGH COURT,
ACCRA<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE;
JOSEPH DANSO<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. JS/5/2015&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:
22ND JANUARY,
2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>ASIEDU-BASOAH
WITH ELIZABETH HASSAN FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>ANTHONY
K. DABI FOR THE 2ND INTERESTED PARTY.<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">

GARY
NIMAKO-MARFO LED BY DR. POKU ADUSEI FOR THE 3RD, 4TH&nbsp;&nbsp; AND 5TH INTERESTED PARTIES.<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">

AKUFFO (MS) JSC (PRESIDING), ANSAH JSC, GBADEGBE
JSC, AKOTO- BAMFO (MRS) JSC, AND BENIN 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">

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

</div>GBADEGBE JSC: &nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>We have before us an application for judicial
review in the nature of certiorari to be directed at the judgment and or
decision of the High Court, Accra dated 29 August in a suit&nbsp; that concerns the parties herein numbered
as&nbsp; BMISC 634/2014 and entitled&nbsp; Kwame Owusu Ansah and&nbsp; Others v the New Patriotic Party and Another.
The grounds on which the application is brought are breach of the right to a
fair hearing and what is described ‘as procedural impropriety’. The facts that
gave rise to the application are shortly stated as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Following the conduct of elections in some
constituencies by the New Patriotic Party (NPP), some members of the party,
feeling aggrieved by the processes leading to the election and the declaration
of results in the Kumawu Constituency, petitioned the national headquarters of
the party which annulled the elections and ordered a re-run. The first three
interested parties herein subsequently lodged a claim before the High Court,
Accra seeking an order confirming the annulment of the results. The plaintiffs
in the said matter named the NPP and the Electoral Commission as defendants who
were duly served with the processes and submitted themselves to the court by
entering notices of appearance to the action. The applicants herein who were
elected at the Kumawu elections having become aware of the pendency of the
action before the High Court, Accra, applied to be joined to the action.
Although the application was fixed for a specified date, when they realised
that by the return date of the application for joinder they would have been
prevented from taking part in the re-run elections and also on account of an
interlocutory injunction granted restraining them from taking part in the said
elections, the applicants herein sought an abridgement of time to have their
application determined but this was refused by the court.&nbsp; In the course of the pendency of the action
before the High Court and at a time when the application for joinder at their instance
had been pending, the learned trial judge was informed in court on 29 August
2014, at the hearing of an application to vacate an order of interlocutory injunction,
that the parties to the cause had reached a settlement. Having been so informed,
the learned trial judge adopted the terms of the compromise as its judgment. It
seems to us that notwithstanding the failure by the learned trial judge to
clearly indicate on the face of the order which appears as the minutes of the
proceedings of that day that it was made by consent, it was indeed, an order
made with the consent of the parties to the action and accordingly, we shall in
this delivery consider it as such.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>We now turn our attention to the grounds of the
application. In respect of that which alleges breach of the right to a fair
hearing, much as we are aware that this is a fundamental right that is
available to parties to an action, we are unable to extend its scope to persons
who have not yet become parties strictly so to speak on the record. Indeed, we
venture to say that, although their applications were pending and had been on
the docket since April 2014 that does not bring them within the designation of ‘parties’
such as to entitle them to be heard on the settlement. We are of the view that,
at the&nbsp; hearing of&nbsp; the matter on 29 August 2014, the parties to
the cause were those whose names appeared as such as there had been no order
for joinder made by which the title of the action would have been amended to
include the applicants herein. Accordingly, much as we share the concern of the
applicants that, in view of the pendency of their application for joinder, it would
have been fairer and more reasonable that, having made their interest in the
subject matter of the action known, they be notified of the settlement
processes. In our view, the failure to consult them or hear them does not
amount an error of law that affects jurisdiction such as to be a good ground
for certiorari. We observe that, in future, trial judges will be well advised
to ensure they do nothing which would create any semblance of preventing any
person, who is interested in an action, from being heard timeously on a</main>