Court: Court of Appeal, Sitting as Supreme Court
Year: 1980
Principle(s): An act which contravenes the constitution is void. Vetting and rejection of Apaloo found contrary to article 127(8), therefore void; Parliamentary proceedings cannot be questioned by the court pursuant to article 96; Every Ghanaian has the right to prevent the abolishing of the constitutional order and can bring an action in the Supreme Court for such purposes.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 1997-98
Principle(s): Retained ministers need prior parliamentary approval before they can assume office; inapplicability of political question doctrine; supremacy of the constitution
Court: Court
Year: 1970
Principle(s): Discussion of the legal effects of a coup d'état, grundnorm
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2018
Principle(s): 1. The right to privacy is “an individual's right to be left alone to live his life free from unwanted intrusion, scrutiny and publicity. It is the right of a person to be secluded, secretive and anonymous in society and to have control of intrusions into the sphere of his private life.” 2. Secretly recording a person is in contravention of his right to privacy under Article 18(2) of the 1992 Constitution. 3. However, rights are not absolute. A secret recording in contravention of a person’s rights may be admitted if doing so would be in the public interests. 4. Where a question of constitutional interpretation arises in any court other than the Supreme Court, that court shall stay proceedings and refer the matter to the Supreme Court.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 1970
Principle(s): 1. It is not enough for a party to allege that a judge may be biased. There must be adequate proof; 2. The proof is the preponderance of evidence, same as in civil cases; 3. Merely knowing a judge is not proof that the judge will be biased; 4. There must be evidence to show a real likelihood of bias.
Court: Supreme Court of Ghana
Year: 2017
Principle(s): Procedural limitation: President ought to obtain parliamentary ratification before entering into an agreement with the government of the United States for the transfer of two suspected terrorists into Ghana.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2017
Principle(s): When acts of administrative bodies contravene the Constitution, those acts shall be declared void. If an administrative body wants to make changes to a Legislative Instrument, it must do so in accordance with the procedure in article 11(7).
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 1994
Principle(s): Any act which contravenes the constitution shall be void to the extent of the inconsistency. The constitution as a whole is a justiciable document, and this includes the directive principles of state policy.
Court: Court
Year: 1967
Principle(s): 1. Acting in excess of the powers conferred is ultra vires the instrument conferring the powers. 2. A certiorari will lie to quash acts done in excess of the powers conferred. 3. There is a natural justice rule that an accused should be given a hearing.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2017
Principle(s): 1. The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, and the independence of Parliament does not affect that power; 2. Ghana operates a constitutional supremacy, not a parliamentary supremacy; 3. The Directive Principles of State Policy are prima facie justiciable; 4. Even if Ghana were to breach an international treaty obligation, such a breach “cannot be said to be the basis for an action against the state for failing in general to promote respect for international law”, as required by Article 40; 5. Failure to follow the procedure for the exercise of legislative authority will lead to a law being null and void. (procedural limitation); 6. When an enactment violates the letter and spirit of the Constitution, it shall be struck down as unconstitutional.
Court: High Court
Year: 1968
Principle(s): Substantive limitation, procedural limitation
Court: High Court
Year: 1968
Principle(s): A person can be arrested without warrant if national security is at stake; the NLC had unlimited powers (absence of substantive limitation); A person can be re-arrested after being release on habeas corpus
Court: High Court
Year:
Principle(s): Civil procedure seeking injunction against a deportation order will hamper the purpose of the Deportation Act, 1957
Court: High Court
Year: 1957
Principle(s): Absence of substantive limitation on the powers of parliament
Court: Supreme Court of Ghana
Year: 2001-2002
Principle(s): Rule of law: an action can be brought against the president under article 2, but through the Attorney General.
Court: Supreme Court of Ghana
Year: 2020
Principle(s): When a person alleges that an action contravenes the constitution, he can bring an action at the Supreme Court under article 2(1) and 130(1) for a determination
Court: Supreme Court of Ghana
Year: 2020
Principle(s): A person who believes an act of government is contrary to some provisions of the constitution, may bring an action in Supreme Court for a declaration to that effect. Procedural Limitation (absence in this case)
Court: Court
Year: 1967
Principle(s): Absence of substantive limitation.
Court: The Supreme Court
Year: 2019
Principle(s): Rule of law: the court declared the prime minister's advice to the crown to prorogue parliament unlawful; Judicial Review: the court's adjudication of executive acts deemed to subvert parliamentary sovereignty.
Court: Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Year: 1952
Principle(s): The President has no power to issue an order for the seizure of property, but congress has the power; separation of powers
Court: UK Supreme Court
Year: 2017
Principle(s): Rule of Law: Ministers are only allowed to give notice of withdrawal to the EU upon statutory authorization; Separation of powers: Legislative authorization is needed prior to ministers giving a formal notice of withdrawal from EU to the Council of the European Union
Court: United States Court of Appeal
Year: 1974
Principle(s): 1. Rule of law: The president does not have absolute immunity. 2. Checks and balances: intra-branch disputes are justiciable
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2014
Principle(s): Judicial Review
Court: Supreme Court of Ghana
Year: 2000
Principle(s): Supremacy of the Constitution; Judicial Review; Locus Standi
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2007-2008
Principle(s): The Directive Principles of State Policy are presumptively justiciable.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2015
Principle(s): The president can propos bills for the amendment of the constitution and engage in activities preparatory to the actual amendment process.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2004
Principle(s): Swearing in of the speaker as president does not violate separation of powers, as the organs still remain distinct and separate.
Court: Supreme Court of Ghana
Year: 5th May, 2016
Principle(s): Judicial Review
Court: Supreme Court of Ghana
Year: 2010
Principle(s): Exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court to enforce constitutional provisions of a personal nature. However, a person without a personal interest may institute an action for the enforcement of all constitutional provisions, even if it is on human rights. Also, if an action is for a declaration that an act is inconsistent with the Constitution, even if human rights provisions are involved, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction.
Court: Supreme Court, Ghana
Year: 1971
Principle(s): If a lower court thinks that a provision is clear and unambiguous, no reference needs to be made to the supreme court for interpretation of said provision; A jury is not necessary for trial of offences not punishable by death or life imprisonment.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 1961
Principle(s): Rule of law, separation of powers; judicial review
Court: Supreme Court of Ghana
Year: 2016
Principle(s): When an issue of interpretation arises in Courts lower than the Supreme Court, the Court ought to stay proceedings and refer the issue to the Supreme Court; The eligibility criteria become alive at the time of filing ones nomination with the Electoral Commission.
Court: Supreme Court of Ghana
Year: 1969
Principle(s): Judicial Review; No need to interpret when the words are clear and unambiguous
Court: Supreme
Year: 2024
Principle(s): 1. Rights are not absolute, but subject to several limitations. 2. The rights guaranteed under Chapter 5 of the constitution are subject to the respect for the rights of others, and secondly, the public interest.
Court: U.S Supreme Court
Year: 1803
Principle(s): Judicial Review: An act of congress which violates the constitution, is void.
Court: The Supreme Court of the Gold Coast Colony
Year: 1916
Principle(s): Customary law has to be proved in the courts till such a time that the courts take judicial notice of them
Court: Divisional Court East Province, Accra
Year: 1892
Principle(s): An executive (commissioner) is only protected from court action by section 50 of the Supreme Court Ordinance if they act in their official capacity or truly believed they acted in an official capacity
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2012
Principle(s): Discrimination against dual citizens by preventing them from holding certain sensitive offices is justifiable and not contrary to Article 17; Inapplicability of basic structure doctrine in Ghana and the power of parliament to amend even fundamental principles by following the right procedure
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 1970
Principle(s): An alien does not have the same rights as a citizen in terms of freedom of movement, entry into and residence in Ghana, and immunity from expulsion from Ghana.
Court: High Court
Year: 1993-1994
Principle(s): Acquisition of citizenship; allegiance; citizenship as a way of disqualifying a candidate; rules governing granting of an injunction
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2023
Principle(s): Citizenship is bound up with loyalty to the State and allegiance to it; Eligibility criteria for becoming a member of parliament become operative at the time the Electoral Commission opens nominations.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 1992-93
Principle(s): Any provision of an enactment which contravenes the constitution is null and void
Court: High Court
Year: 1975
Principle(s): 1. The new grundnorm, the National Redemption Council (Establishment) Proclamation, 1972, continued in force Article 15(2) of the 1969 Constitution and was also the source of its validity. 2. A new ground norm can continue in force the existing laws or abrogate those laws.
Court: High Court
Year: 1972
Principle(s): Parliament does not have unlimited powers, and its acts can be challenged in court.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2003-2005
Principle(s): The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit if: the suit involves genuine issues of interpretation and the provisions needing interpretation have not been previously interpreted; it involves the enforcement of a non-human rights provision of the constitution (jurisdiction lies with the High Court in human rights cases); it questions the legality of an enactment by Parliament or any other authority; and it cannot be resolved by other competent courts without infringing upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 1997-98
Principle(s): In the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, the Supreme Court can order lower courts to discontinue a trial; The court will not declare non-existent laws null and void.
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1959
Principle(s): Procedural limitations. A bill affecting the traditional functions or privileges of chiefs must be referred to the House of Chief in the area of affected chiefs before its second reading in parliament.
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
Year: 1958
Principle(s): A revolution abolishes the old legal order and creates a new Grundnorm, the source of validity for all laws in a legal system.
Court: High Court of Uganda
Year: 1966
Principle(s): After a successful revolution, the old order ceases to exists and a new one is created.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 1970
Principle(s): There was no revolution when a council of ministers handed over power to a military government.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2020
Principle(s): An action will be dismissed if it does not properly invoke the enforcement or interpretative jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2004
Principle(s): Meaning of administrative bodies; meaning of the duty to act fairly and reasonably; audi alterem partem (natural justice)
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2015
Principle(s): Section 104(4) of Act 30 is unconstitutional
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2019
Principle(s): 1. A person who is arrested or detained shall be brought before court within forty-eight hours after the arrest, restriction or detention or be released conditionally or unconditionally. 2. Forty-eight hours means exactly forty-eight hours. 3. Any other law that is inconsistent with any provision of the 1992 Constitution is null and void to the extent of the inconsistency. 4. Human rights are subject to the rights of others and laws that are necessary to a peaceful society.
Court: Supreme Court of Ghana
Year: 1998
Principle(s): 1. Any provision which contravenes the constitution is void. Regulation 3(1) of LI 239 contravened article 21(1)(e) of the 1992 Constitution, and is therefore void; 2. Rights are not absolute; 3. Guide to Interpretation; Freedom of association must be to promote legitimate interests; Constitutionalism
Court: Supreme Court of Ghana
Year: 1999-2000
Principle(s): 1. Any provision which contravenes the constitution is void; 2. Meaning of the words 'mean' and 'includes'.; 3. Lower courts bound to follow the decisions of higher courts
Court: House of Lords
Year: 1852
Principle(s): The decision of a judge with a pecuniary interest in the case is invalid.
Court: Court
Year: 2003-2004
Principle(s): When there is the real likelihood a judge will be biased in favor of a party, he will be disqualified from judging the case.
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1995-1996
Principle(s): No one can be a judge in his own cause. Exclusion clause must be in accordance with the principles of natural justice to be valid.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2001-2002
Principle(s): The courts will generally enforce a provision in the Constitution of an Association which requires members to exhaust internal procedures for resolving issues before resorting to the Courts. However, the courts will not enforce such a provision if doing so is against the rule that a man should not be a judge in his own cause. Nemo judex in causa sua.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2001-2002
Principle(s): When an individual is entrusted with a constitutional or statutory obligation, an allegation of bias will not obstruct the fulfillment of that duty.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 1980
Principle(s): Meaning of nemo judex in causa sua; The doctrine of necessity as an exception to the nemo judex rule.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2023
Principle(s): An enactment cannot oust the jurisdiction of the Courts, as same is conferred by the Constitution.
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1968
Principle(s): Where a statute clearly enjoins a person to perform an act, he has to do it even if its performance is incompatible with the strict rules of natural justice… We are of the opinion that where the clear terms of a statute conflict with natural justice it is the latter which has to yield.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2005-2006
Principle(s): 1. The performance of a statutory or constitutional duty cannot be prevented by the operation of the principles of natural justice. 2. When the Chief Justice empanels a bench, he acts as an administrator and not as a judge. Accordingly, a principle of natural justice tailored to the requirements of proceedings cannot be relevant to that exercise
Court: Court
Year: 2007-2008
Principle(s): Only citizens of Ghana can bring an action under Article 2(1) for the enforcement and interpretation of the 1992 Constitution; Citizens and non-citizens can bring an action in the High Court for the enforcement of their personal human rights under Article 33(1); The essence of Article 2(1) is to foster the enforcement of all provisions of the 1992 Constitution; Citizens of Ghana have the locus to seek enforcement of any provision of the 1992 Constitution.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 1996–97
Principle(s): Legal effects of a revolution. Suspension of the 1979 Constitution. History of Ghana and the PNDC’s Rule
Court: High Court
Year: 2021
Principle(s): Relationship between capacity (locus standi) and jurisdiction; Rights are not absolute; Must be exercised in accordance with the limits in the Constitution and the public interest. Rules of a school which limits the enjoyment of a right when the constitution does not recognize such limits, are of no effect.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2022
Principle(s): Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to interpret provisions of the 1992 Constitution; Meaning of Articles 102 and 104(1); Meaning of political question doctrine and its non-applicability in Ghana; Constitutional supremacy versus parliamentary supremacy, the prevalence of the former in Ghana; Rule of law and the limits on parliament in Ghana; The 1992 Constitution as the grundnorm.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2011
Principle(s): Constitutional and statutory limits on the institution of chieftaincy; Section 63(d) of the Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759), which gives power to the chief to call a person to attend to an issue, void for being contrary to Article 21(1)(g) (freedom of movement). Rule of law: the chieftaincy institution is not above the laws of Ghana; Chiefs do not have an adjudicating function, only the function of customary arbitrator
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1984-86
Principle(s): Constitutionalism under military regime, limited to the extent allowed by the military regime itself. Power of courts under a military regime: "The only power which the courts have ever had and still have to declare the laws of a military regime invalid or null and void is in cases where the law itself does not conform to the criteria for validity mandatorily provided for by the military regime itself."
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1984-86
Principle(s): Meaning of a chief. Entry of name in national register of chiefs no longer a condition precedent for one to be a chief
Court: High Court
Year: 1977
Principle(s): A queenmother can be (or is) a chief; Judicial functions of a Traditional Council are exercised by its judicial committee.
Court: Court
Year: 1977
Principle(s): 1. Natural justice rules: right to be notified and heard before a matter in dispute is decided (Audi alteram partem). Nobody can be a judge in his own cause (Nemo judex in causa sua). 2. Certiorari will lie to quash a decision made contrary to natural justice rules.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 1997-1998
Principle(s): 1. The head of a market association and other such groupings, despite being called chief, is not a chief within the constitutional and statutory definition of a chief. 2. A cause or matter affecting chieftaincy is not limited to only issues on the nomination, installation, enskinment, or enstoolment of a chief but extends to the constitutional relations under customary law between chiefs. 3. When there is a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy in an action, the High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain such an action.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2017
Principle(s): The head of a migrant community is not a chief within the meaning of Article 277.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2009
Principle(s): 1. The Regional House of Chiefs has no original jurisdiction to hear petitions involving divisional stools or stools below a paramount stool. 2. Merely naming a paramount chief in a petition does not make the petition a dispute involving a paramount stool. 3. Only the kingmakers can destool a chief, not the paramount chief.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2000
Principle(s): The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy on first instance. It, however, has an appellate jurisdiction to entertain a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy from the decision of the National House of Chiefs
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1992
Principle(s): Where an act gives rise to either a civil or criminal action, then it is for the complainant to decide whether to institute his action in a civil court or proceed against him in a criminal court. If he decides to institute a civil action then in a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy only the chieftaincy tribunal can entertain it. So the High Court and Circuit Courts will not have jurisdiction if the complainant decides to institute civil proceedings.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2000
Principle(s): Substantive limitation on the power of the president to remove a judicial officer
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1980
Principle(s): The High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. The High Court still has supervisory jurisdiction and can issue prerogative writs aimed at correcting some mischief in an inferior court or tribunal (say, if a lower court wrongly assumes jurisdiction to decide a chieftaincy matter, the High Court can quash that decision) in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 1981
Principle(s): 1. For a valid abdication, four conditions must be met (renunciation, acceptance by kingmakers, performance of requisite rites and formalities, publicity). 2. Only those who elect a chief can destool a chief.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2004
Principle(s): An enactment can be void on the basis that it is vague (void-for-vagueness doctrine).
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2003-2004
Principle(s): 1. The constitutional presumption of innocence embedded in Article 19(2)(c) of the 1992 Constitution does not import an automatic right to bail. 2. The constitutional duty of the court under Article 14(4) of the Constitution, to grant bail to the accused if he is not tried within a reasonable time, is applicable irrespective of the nature of the accusation or the severity of the punishment upon conviction. 3. The constitutional presumption of grant of bail in Article 14 and 19(2)(c) is rebuttable, and is in fact rebutted by a statutory provision that expressly disallows bail, such as the circumstances outlined in Section 96(7) of Act 30. 4. The provisions in Act 30 are only valid if consistent with the 1992 Constitution. 5. The rights of the accused must be balanced with the legitimate interests of the community
Court: Gimpa SRC Judicial Council
Year: 2024
Principle(s): Persons in executive positions, per the SRC Constitution, are required to resign 21 days prior to filling their nominations; A member of a committee is a person in an executive position; The acts of a committee that are within its powers will not be quashed by certiorari.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 1995-1996
Principle(s): 1. When the constitution provides a special forum for undertaking an action, that forum must be used, and the court will decline jurisdiction if a person seeks to use the court. 2. The court does not have the power to remove a justice of the Supreme Court. 3. Applicability of political question doctrine in Ghana.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2001-2002
Principle(s): 1. Natural justice consists of the twin rules of audi alterem partem and the nemo judex in causa sua. 2. The audi alterem partem rule requires that the accused person be given a fair hearing and notice of the actual charges against him and be given the opportunity to present his defence. 3. The nemo judex in causa sua rule states that “No man should be a judge in his own cause. This rule is designed to eliminate bias and to ensure fairness in the hearing of a case against an alleged offending persons facing a disciplinary inquiry. 4. A decision that violates the rules of natural justice is void.