THE REPUBLIC vs. THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS & DEATHS EX PARTE: PHILIP K. AMOH URSULA AMOH [2017]DLHC3965

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS & DEATHS EX PARTE: PHILIP K. AMOH URSUL... [2017]DLHC3965

Date	2017-09-05
Suit No.	SUIT NO: GJ/751/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC3965

JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO

IRIS K. AGGREY-ORLEANS FOR THE APPLICANT

MS. ENID MARFUL SAU FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2017]DLHC3965
																																						<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>THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS
&amp; DEATHS EX PARTE: PHILIP K. AMOH URSULA AMOH <o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT (GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION, COURT 6), 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">

SUIT NO: GJ/751/2017&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: 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2017.<o:p></o:p>

MS.
ENID MARFUL SAU FOR THE RESPONDENT <o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">DECISION<o:p></o:p>

</div>i. Introduction/Overview: <o:p></o:p>[1] The primary
question for resolution in this legal objection is whether the Applicants have
filed the instant application for judicial review out of time pursuant to Order
55 Rule 3 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004 C.I. 47 and therefore their
rights have extinguished. <o:p></o:p>[2] The facts of this
case are free from complexity. On May 19, 2017 the Applicants filed at the
registry of this Court a Motion on Notice for Judicial Review pursuant to Order
55 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004 C.I. 47 for an order in
the nature of Mandamus to compel the Registrar of Births and Deaths to register
the birth of their son. The contention of the Applicants is that following the
birth of their son on June 4, 2016 at the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital they chose
to name him Nana Kwame Boateng Amoh.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>[3] From the affidavit
evidence on record, the Applicants say on September 13, 2016 “we attempted to
register the birth of our son…but the official in charge of the Birth and Death
Registration stationed at Legon hospital refused to register him”. According to
them, the Officer explained that he would not register the child if the
Applicants wanted to maintain “Nana” as part of his name. The official insisted
that they could only register the child as “Kwame Boateng Amoh”. The record
further shows that on September 20, 2016 the Applicants again attempted to
register their son at Korle Bu Teaching Hospital but again the Officer in
charge refused and insisted that they remove the “Nana” from the name.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>[4] According to the
Applicants they caused their lawyers to write to the Registrar of Births and
Deaths to demand that their son be registered in accordance with the law but up
until the date of filing the instant application, the Registrar had refused to
respond. A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit “A” to the
application.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>[5] Now, after been
served with the application learned Counsel for the Respondent from the
Attorney General’s office has filed a Notice of Preliminary Legal Objection
against the hearing of the application based on the grounds that the
application was filed out of time. According to the Respondent pursuant to
Order 55 Rule 3(1), the time within which an application for judicial review
should be brought is not later than six (6) months from the date of the
occurrence of the event upon which the application is premised. According to
the Respondent the occurrence date complained of is 13th and 20th September
2016 and the application was filed on 19th May, 2017 and therefore the instant
application has been brought nine (9) months after the occurrence and
therefore, this Court is not seized with jurisdiction to hear the application
because the Applicants have failed to comply with the time limits set by the
Rules of Court.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>ii. Arguments of Counsel: <o:p></o:p>[6] In arguing the
objection learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the basis for the
objection is Order 55 Rule 3. Counsel reiterated the dates indicated in the
notice of objection and submitted that the application should have been filed in
or about March 2017 and not later than that date. Counsel referred to the
unreported Supreme Court case of REPUBLIC v. WASSA FIASE TRADITIONAL
COUNCIL &amp; NANA AKWASI SOMPREY II, EX PARTE ABUSUAPAYIN KOFI NYAMEKYE &amp;
3 OTHERS CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/55/2014 and submitted that this Court
has no discretion to extend the time for the filing and therefore having failed
to file within the stipulated time this Court is not seized with jurisdiction.
Counsel therefore urged on the Court to dismiss the application.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>[7] Counsel for the
Applicants in opposing the legal objection submitted that the objection is
without basis because in compliance with the statutory requirements for an
application such as the instant one, there ought to be a demand and a refusal
before the filing of the application. In this case even though a demand was
made no response was received and therefore the Applicant filed the application
at a time they deemed reasonable after the lack of response. Learned Counsel
relied on the case of REPUBLIC v. CHIEFTAINCY SECRETARIAT AND
ANOTHER; EX PARTE ADANSI TRADITIONAL COUNCIL [1968] GLR 736-742 for
the submission that for a Mandamus to be sustained there ought to be a demand
and refusal.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>[8] Learned Counsel
further submitted that it is erroneous for the Respondent to say that the
occurrence date is September 13 and 20, 2016 because according to her based on
the law, there must be a demand and a denial for the right to go to Court to
accrue. Counsel relied on the writings of Halsbury Laws of England, 4th Edition
paragraph 124 to support her submission. Counsel further submitted that even
though Exhibit “A” was written on October 6, 2016 the application was only
filed in May 2017 because the Applicants desired to give the registrar ample
time to respond but he has still not replied. According to learned Counsel the
application was only filed when it beca</main>