JOSEPH SAM vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. []DLSC2349

Date
Suit No.	WRIT No. 5/98.
Citation No.	[]DLSC2349

Mrs. Bamford-Addo J.S.C

Ampiah J.S.C

Acquah J.S.C.

Atuguba J.S.C

Ms. Akuffo J.S

MR. NTRAKWAH WITH MISS IRENE DANQUAH FOR PLAINTIFF.

MR. ADDO SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR DEFENDANT WITH HIM MR. S.Y. ANIM CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY.

[]DLSC2349
																																						<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" >JOSEPH SAM<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT]<o:p></o:p>WRIT
No. 5/98.<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">

DATE:<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
text-align:justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">MR. ADDO,
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR DEFENDANT WITH HIM, MR. S.Y. ANIM, CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
text-align:justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Mrs. Bamford-Addo J.S.C. (Presiding) Ampiah, J.S.C., Acquah J.S.C.,
Atuguba J.S.C., Ms. Akuffo J.S.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>MRS. J. BAMFORD-ADDO, J.S.C.:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The plaintiff issued a Writ to invoke the Original
Jurisdiction of this court seeking the interpretation of the Constitution and a
declaration<o:p></o:p>"that
Section 15 of the Divestiture of State Interests (implementation) Law 1992
PNDCL 326 is inconsistent with or in contravention of the Provisions of
Articles 140(1) and 293(2)(3) of the 1992 Constitution and to that extent it is
null and void."<o:p></o:p>The Defendant raised a preliminary objection to
this action on the ground that Plaintiff has no standing to bring the suit
since he has no personal interest in the outcome of the case. He asked that
Plaintiff's writ be struck out and dismissed for lack of standing.<o:p></o:p>The Defendants' grounds for the preliminary
objection were that<o:p></o:p>a) a controversy or dispute&nbsp; concerning the
interpretation of an enactment must have arisen before the said declaration can
be sought.<o:p></o:p>b) that according to Article 2(1) of the Constitution
the meaning of "person" contained therein is referable to an
aggrieved person or a person whose interest has been adversely affected by the
construction of an enactment or anything contained in the enactment; for the
reason that the Supreme Court does not "tender advice" to prospective
litigants but interpretes the constitution in the context of disputes:"<o:p></o:p>The Solicitor General for Defendant submitted that
even though the "dispute and controversy" requirement was not
expressly stated in Article 2(1) of the Constitution 1992,<o:p></o:p>"it
is clear that all over the realms of the civilised world, courts exist to
settle disputes and that it is only those whose interests have been adversely
affected any way or the other by the construction of&nbsp; a said enactment or
a provision of that enactment who are entitled to a declaration. The 1992
Constitution therefore assumed this as given and did not elaborate this
expressly in the constitution."<o:p></o:p>I find this submission to b</main>