ABDULAI YUSIF FANASH MUHAMMED vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ALFRED AGBESI WOYOME AND MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU [2016]DLSC2860

ABDULAI YUSIF FANASH MUHAMMED vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ALFRED AGBESI WOYOME AND... [2016]DLSC2860

Date	2016-03-03
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J1/2/2016
Citation No.	[2016]DLSC2860

WOOD (MRS) CJ (PRESIDING)

ANSAH JSC

ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC

DOTSE JSC

ANIN YEBOAH JSC

BAFFOE - BONNIE JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

AKOTO - BAMFO (MRS) JSC

BENIN JSC

KWESI AFRIFA ESQ. F NASAH (CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) WITH STELLA BADU (CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT.

KEN ANKU ESQ. FOR THE 2ND DEFENDNT.

3RD DEFENDANT/APPLICANT APPEARS IN PERSON.

[2016]DLSC2860
																																						<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" >ABDULAI YUSIF FANASH
MUHAMMED<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL,
ALFRED AGBESI WOYOME AND MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU<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. J1/2/2016&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: 3RD
MARCH, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>KWESI AFRIFA ESQ.&nbsp;
F NASAH (CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) WITH STELLA&nbsp;&nbsp; BADU (CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE 1ST
DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p>KEN ANKU ESQ. FOR THE 2ND DEFENDNT.<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">

3RD
DEFENDANT/APPLICANT APPEARS IN PERSON.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p>WOOD (MRS) CJ (PRESIDING), ANSAH JSC, ADINYIRA (MRS)
JSC, DOTSE JSC, ANIN YEBOAH JSC, BAFFOE - BONNIE JSC, GBADEGBE JSC, AKOTO -
BAMFO (MRS) JSC, AND BENIN JSC<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;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>ADINYIRA (MRS),
JSC: <o:p></o:p>The Plaintiff on 22nd December 2015
commenced this action invoking the original jurisdiction of this Court claiming
the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>“1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A
declaration that the financial engineering claims by Alfred Agbesi Woyome
arising out of the tender bid by Vamed Engineering GmbH/Waterville Holdings
during the procurement process from June 2005 until its wrongful abrogation in
August 2005 is not an international business transaction within the meaning of
article 181 of the Constitution, 1992.”<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A
declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of article 2(1), article
130 and article 181 of the Constitution, 1992 the Supreme Court has no
jurisdiction to pronounce on the financial engineering claims between a citizen
of Ghana and the Government of Ghana which does not fall within the ambit of
purview of article 181.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A
declaration that the review decision of the Supreme Court in suit No. J7/10/2013
intituled (sic) Martin Alamisi Amidu v The Attorney General, Waterville Holding
(BVI) Limited and Alfred Agbesi Woyome dated 29th July 2014 is wrong
in law for excess of jurisdiction as same was obtained in violation of the
Constitution, 1992.<o:p></o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A
declaration that the consequential orders in Suit No. J7/10/2013 intituled
(sic) Martin Alamisi v The Attorney General, Waterville Holding (BVI) Limited
and Alfred Agbesi Woyome dated 29th July 2014 given in the review
decision by the same Court are wrong in law, pull and void ab initio and
accordingly ought to be set aside in exercise of the powers of this Honourable
Court to set aside its own void judgments.<o:p></o:p>On 19 January 2016, the 3rd defendant filed
a notice of motion to raise a preliminary legal objection to the jurisdiction
of this Court in this action. This point was set down as issue 4 in the joint
memoranda of issues filed by the 1st and 3rd Defendants on
9 February 2016. <o:p></o:p>Issue 4 was as follows:<o:p></o:p>“Whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain the
Plaintiff’s action challenging the jurisdiction of the review bench of the
Court in Amidu (No 3) v Attorney General, Waterville Holding (BVI) Ltd &amp;
Woyome (No 1) [2013-14] 1SCGLR]606”<o:p></o:p>On 11 February 2016, the parties agreed to this
jurisdictional issue to be determined first as the outcome may determine the
fate of the Plaintiff’s writ one way or the other. This Court therefore set
down issue 4 of the 1st and 3rd Defendants’ memorandum of
issues for legal arguments. <o:p></o:p>The 3rd Defendant, a former Attorney
General and Minister of Justice, who was representing himself relied on
paragraph 4 of his&nbsp; affidavit in support
which was to the effect that:<o:p></o:p>“ A casual reading of the four reliefs endorsed on the
Plaintiff/Respondent’s Writ of Summons purporting to invoke the original
jurisdiction of this Court leaves one in no doubt that none of those reliefs
raises any issue of interpretation or enforcement of the Constitution to cloth
the Plaintiff/Respondent in this action with any locus standi to commence this
action under article 2(1), and 130 of the 1992 Co</main>