DYNAMIC YOUTH MOVEMENT OF GHANA AND EDWARD TUTTOR vs. HON. KEN OFORI ATTA (MIN. OF FINANCE) COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE THE ATTORNEY- GENERAL [2018]DLSC158

DYNAMIC YOUTH MOVEMENT OF GHANA AND EDWARD TUTTOR vs. HON. KEN OFORI ATTA (MIN.... [2018]DLSC158

Date	2018-07-11
Suit No.	WRIT NO.J1/07/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLSC158

PWAMANG JSC SITTIN AS A SINGLE JUDGE

SYLVESTER WILLIAMS (CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE 1ST AND 3RD DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS

OSMAN ALHASSAN FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS

COSMOS AMPEGUO FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2018]DLSC158
																																						<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" ><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>DYNAMIC YOUTH MOVEMENT OF GHANA AND EDWARD
TUTTOR<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>HON. KEN OFORI ATTA&nbsp; (MIN. OF FINANCE)<o:p></o:p>COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS&nbsp;&nbsp; AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE<o:p></o:p>THE ATTORNEY- GENERAL<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

&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; &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; &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: 11TH JULY, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>SYLVESTER WILLIAMS (CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE
1ST AND 3RD DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS.OSMAN ALHASSAN FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

COSMOS AMPEGUO FOR THE 2ND
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>PWAMANG JSC SITTIN AS A SINGLE JUDGE<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 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div> PWAMANG,
JSC:-<o:p></o:p>In the substantive suit, the plaintiffs invoked
the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for interpretation and
enforcement of Articles 284 and 286 of the Constitution, 1992 among other
provisions of the Constitution. The parties have filed their respective
statements of case. In the application before the court, the 1st and 3rd
defendants are praying for leave to amend their joint statement of case.
Applicants stated that after a close study of the report of the 2nd
Defendant on the back of which plaintiffs mounted their action, the Defendants
have decided to amend their statement of case to place the whole of their
response before the court for determination.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiffs and 2nd defendant are opposed to
the application. Plaintiffs contended that the application is not being made in
good faith since the report of 2nd defendant has always been available to
defendants. Plaintiffs further say that the intended amendment will lead to
delay in the determination of the suit and take them by surprise. Their lawyer
referred the court to the case of YEBOA
V BOFOUR [1971] 2 GLR 199 CA.<o:p></o:p>The 2nd defendant has taken a technical objection
to the application by arguing that the intended amendment is in defence of the
1st defendant whose personal conduct in the issuance of Government of Ghana
bonds is in question. 2nd defendant says it will amount to a breach of Article
88 of the Constitution for the Attorney-General who is the legal advisor to the
Government to defend the 1st defendant in the circumstances of this case. They
referred the court to the case of&nbsp; TSIKATA V CHIEF JUSTICE &amp; AG
[2001-2002] SCGLR 437. The plaintiffs quickly associated themselves with
the submissions of 2nd defendant on Article 88 of the Constitution.<o:p></o:p>In responds to the submissions on Article 88
learned Counsel representing the Attorney-General, Chief State Attorney,
Sylvester Williams Esq argued that the role the 1st defendant's played in the
issuance of the Government of Ghana bonds was in his capacity as a public
officer so it is the Attorney-General who ought to represent him in court. He
further stated that if 2nd defendant and plaintiff claim that the
Attorney-General's representation of 1st defendant breaches Article 88 of the
Constitution, then they have to properly invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court duly constituted for a declaration to that effect.<o:p></o:p>I am in agreement with Mr Sylvester Williams that
the allegation of breach of Article 88 of the constitution ought to be properly
raised in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the Rules of the Supreme Court 1996, (CI 16).
Consequently I will over rule that objection.<o:p></o:p>On the substantive grounds on which the plaintiffs
opposed the application, my view is that the purpose of Rule 49 of CI 16 is to enable parties to put their whole case
before the court for a complete and final determination and avoid multiplicity
of suits which will be the result if amendments are disallowed without just
cause. The case of YEBOA V BOFOUR
(supra) that plaintiffs referred to states those amendments may be allowed
at any stage of</main>