|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| June 2025 |
|
|
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Request to suspend summons and travel ban dismissed for lack of demonstrated urgency and irreparable harm.
Provisional measures — prima facie jurisdiction — criteria: extreme gravity, urgency and irreparable harm — burden on applicant to prove urgency and irreparable harm — delay undermines urgency — suspension of summons not granted.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Application dismissed as inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies; Court confirmed jurisdiction despite the respondent's default.
Human rights – admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies – application premature where domestic criminal investigations and appeals ongoing; Jurisdiction – Article 34(6) Declaration withdrawal no retroactive effect; Default judgment – Rule 63(1) requirements satisfied; Costs – each party to bear own costs.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Claims of unequal treatment and denial of hearing dismissed for lack of evidence and valid procedural grounds.
Administrative law – internal promotion in public service; Equality before the law – burden of proof for discriminatory treatment; Judicial review – permissibility of jurisprudential evolution; Right to have one’s cause heard – procedural service and appeal time‑limits; Admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies and reasonable time.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Court found prima facie jurisdiction but dismissed provisional measures as they would prejudice the merits.
* Human rights – Provisional measures – Requirement of extreme gravity, urgency and prevention of irreparable harm – urgency as real and imminent risk; irreparable harm requiring reasonable likelihood. * Jurisdiction – Prima facie jurisdiction where alleged violations fall under the African Charter and respondents have ratified the Protocol and deposited Article 34(6) Declaration. * Provisional measures – Cannot be granted where they would prejudice the merits (measures identical to relief on the merits). * Competence – Objections that matters concern WAEMU recognition/diplomatic acts dismissed at prima facie stage.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Failure to exhaust effective domestic remedies (Constitutional Court) renders application challenging an amnesty law inadmissible despite Court's jurisdiction.
Amnesty law; right to life and dignity; admissibility—exhaustion of local remedies; jurisdiction of African Court vis-à-vis domestic courts; power to order remedies (including repeal) where violations found; anonymity and multiple applications—abuse of process assessed on merits.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Applicant’s failure to exhaust effective domestic remedies rendered the application inadmissible despite Court’s jurisdiction.
• Human rights – Admissibility – Exhaustion of local remedies – Availability and effectiveness of constitutional review at domestic level.
• Jurisdiction – Temporal effect of State’s withdrawal of Article 34(6) Declaration – Applications filed before withdrawal takes effect.
• Proof required to excuse exhaustion – allegations of persecution or lack of judicial independence must be substantiated.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Unstamped foreign power of attorney inadmissible; forensic evidence and plaintiff’s possession supported title; appeal dismissed.
Land law – title and possession – admissibility of foreign power of attorney – stamping requirement – notary acting as witness and notary; Evidence – expert/forensic evidence on forgery; burden of proof in competing title claims; procedural participation and waiver.
|
25 June 2025 |
|
Interlocutory/default judgment granting declaratory and substantive reliefs without evidence is jurisdictionally void and is quashed.
Civil procedure – interlocutory/default judgment – Declaratory reliefs, damages and perpetual injunctions not amenable to summary disposal – Order 13 Rule 6 C.I.47 – Jurisdictional nullity where substantive reliefs granted without evidence.
|
25 June 2025 |
|
|
24 June 2025 |
|
Customary successor entitled to chamber and undeveloped plot where devolution was admitted; counterclaim dismissed.
Customary succession – devolution of property to customary successor; Proof and onus in civil claims – admission by opposing party; Land/property dispute – declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction; Counterclaim – failure for lack of evidence of possession of documents. |
23 June 2025 |
|
Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case for forgery, uttering, possession or stealing; accused acquitted and discharged.
Criminal law – Prima facie case – Forgery, uttering, possession and stealing – requirement to prove making/altering, mens rea and possession; weight of forensic reports where expert does not testify; contradictions and inconsistencies in prosecution evidence may defeat a prima facie case.
|
20 June 2025 |
|
Unlawful repossession of a hire-purchase truck entitles hirer to recover payments and general damages.
Hire-purchase — existence of agreement may be inferred from conduct and receipts; protected goods — unlawful repossession without court order prohibited under NRCD 292 s.8; remedies — termination of agreement on wrongful repossession and recovery of money had and received; special vs general damages; capacity to sue burden on counterclaimant.
|
19 June 2025 |
|
|
17 June 2025 |
|
Court limited proceedings to States that ratified the Protocol and deposited the Article 34(6) declaration, striking out non‑qualifying parties.
Jurisdiction — Personal jurisdiction under Articles 3, 5 and 34(6) of the Protocol; NGO admissibility — observer status before the Commission as precondition for NGO applicants under Article 5(3); Effect of withdrawal — withdrawal of Article 34(6) declaration removes Court jurisdiction once effective; Rule 90 — Court’s inherent power to strike out non‑qualifying parties and reorganize proceedings for judicial efficiency.
|
17 June 2025 |
|
|
16 June 2025 |
|
Application to adduce fresh evidence on appeal refused for lack of due diligence; evidence was available at trial.
New evidence on appeal — Rule 76 Supreme Court Rules — Requirements: unavailable at trial, relevance, credibility, due diligence — Evidence held available at trial; proposed witness available — Application refused.
|
12 June 2025 |
|
Customary arbitral panels lack jurisdiction to apply PNDC Law 111 to redistribute pre-1985 vested family estates.
Customary arbitration; jurisdictional competence of chiefs; intestate succession pre-1985 vested estates in family; PNDC Law 111 cannot be applied by customary arbitrators to redistribute pre-1985 vested family property; admissibility of evidence; arbitrability limits.
|
11 June 2025 |
|
Whether an election petition was timely and whether substituted service on a sworn MP complied with Articles 117–118.
Electoral law – Gazettement of results – Representation of the People Law s.18 (21-day period); Civil procedure – ex parte interlocutory injunctions in electoral disputes; Service of process – substituted service and Parliamentary immunity (Articles 117–118 Constitution); Contempt – validity of committal where service on MP is defective; Supervisory jurisdiction – certiorari/prohibition to quash conviction and restrain sentencing.
|
11 June 2025 |
|
Appellate court reduced stealing sentence where possession of proceeds did not justify treating appellant as instigator despite equal roles.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Judicial discretion – Role of co-accused in joint offences – Possession of stolen property not by itself proof of instigator status – Concurrent sentences – Conspiracy, unlawful entry, stealing, unlawful damage.
|
11 June 2025 |
|
A strike-out under Order 11(18)(1)(a) requires a defence on record and is only appropriate for plainly unsustainable claims.
Civil procedure – Order 11 Rule 18(1)(a) – strike out for disclosing no reasonable cause of action; Procedural prerequisites – necessity of defence on record; Conditional appearance (Order 9) not substitute for substantive strike-out application; Strike-out reserved for claims that are plainly unsustainable; Allegations of unlawful eviction and property destruction require trial.
|
10 June 2025 |
|
Decree of dissolution granted where parties had not cohabited for two continuous years and respondent consented.
Matrimonial Causes Act (Act 367) – Sole ground for divorce is breakdown beyond reconciliation; grounds include unreasonable behaviour and non-cohabitation for two years with respondent’s consent; admissions by non-traversal treated as proved; court may grant decree where statutory facts established and consent present.
|
4 June 2025 |
|
Applicant’s unchallenged allegations and two-year non-cohabitation with respondent’s consent justified dissolution of the ordinance marriage.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1971 (Act 367) – divorce – breakdown beyond reconciliation – unreasonable behaviour – non-cohabitation for two years with respondent’s consent – unchallenged admissions in pleadings.
|
4 June 2025 |
|
Dispute over migrant/community headship is not a chieftaincy matter; High Court has jurisdiction.
* Chieftaincy – definition of "chief" under Article 277 and Act 759 – descent from appropriate family/lineage and valid installation required.
* Jurisdiction – Courts Act s.57; ordinary courts may hear disputes over migrant/community heads that are not chiefs under Article 277.
* Migrant/community chiefs – heads of migrant communities outside traditional areas are not necessarily chieftaincy matters.
* Precedent – Republic v. High Court, Kumasi; ex parte Abubakari (No. 3) affirmed that such headship disputes are not causes affecting chieftaincy.
|
4 June 2025 |
|
|
4 June 2025 |
|
Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case of abetment; A1 acquitted under s.271 Act 30.
Criminal law – Abetment (s.20(1) Act 29) – Prima facie proof requirement – Mens rea and contemporaneity of acts – Trial judge’s duty under s.271 Act 30 to direct acquittal where no case to answer – Reliance on accuseds’ statements and inconsistency with autopsy undermining prosecution case.
|
3 June 2025 |
|
Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case of abetment due to lack of contemporaneous act, mens rea and inconsistent forensic evidence.
Criminal law – Abetment of murder – Prima facie case – Section 20(1) Criminal Offences Act (Act 29) – Section 271 Criminal Procedure (Act 30) – mens rea and actus reus – reliance on accuseds’ statements – inconsistency with forensic evidence (laryngeal fracture).
|
3 June 2025 |
|
Court entered the applicant’s settlement as a consent judgment, struck out the suit and allowed execution on default.
Commercial litigation – Consent judgment – Parties’ amicable settlement recorded as consent judgment; terms provide payment schedule and legal fees; clause permitting execution without further leave on default; suit struck out as settled.
|
2 June 2025 |
|
|
2 June 2025 |
|
|
2 June 2025 |
|
Court exercised discretion to reopen pleadings, deemed respondent’s late response filed, and allowed applicant 30 days to reply.
Procedure – Reopening of pleadings – Court’s discretion under Rule 46(3) and inherent powers under Rule 90 – Late filing and extension of time – Service of respondent’s response and thirty-day period to reply – Jurisdictional note on State’s withdrawal of Article 34(6) Declaration not affecting pending cases.
|
2 June 2025 |
|
Plaintiff proved a US$500,000 corporate loan; defendant failed to prove repayment, so judgment awarded with interest and costs.
Civil procedure – burden of proof; corporate law – apparent authority of managing director to bind company (Turquand principle); evidence – admissibility and weight of electronic records under Electronic Transactions Act; self-serving and unauthenticated documents carry little evidential weight.
|
2 June 2025 |
| May 2025 |
|
|
No prima facie case of stealing established; appeal allowed and appellant acquitted under section 173 of Act 30.
Criminal law – Stealing – Elements of offence (appropriation, dishonesty, ownership) – Prima facie case at close of prosecution – Section 173 Act 30 – Differentiation between civil contractual dispute and criminal theft.
|
30 May 2025 |
|
Unauthorised rollover of investments amounted to fundamental breach; plaintiff awarded principal with interest, damages and costs.
* Contract law – breach – unauthorised rollover of matured investment – fundamental breach entitling innocent party to damages; * Evidence – Order 38 rule 3E CI 47 – witness statement inadmissible where witness not called and statement not put in as hearsay; * Civil procedure – absence of defendant does not dispense with plaintiff’s burden to prove case on balance of probabilities; * Remedies – award of principal with contractual interest, damages and costs.
|
30 May 2025 |
|
Court found prosecution proved voluntariness and statutory requirements; accuseds’ torture and illiteracy claims were uncorroborated and dismissed.
Evidence — Confession statements — Voir dire to determine voluntariness; burden on prosecution to prove voluntariness beyond reasonable doubt; Section 120 NRCD 323 — requirement of independent witness who understands and certifies — absence of corroboration to torture allegations renders them afterthoughts; illiteracy claim must be proved and explained.
|
30 May 2025 |
|
Parties’ settlement admitting liability and ordering sale of collateral, payment of GH¢7.5M, and court-ordered enforcement of vacant possession.
Commercial law – consent judgment – settlement by admission of liability – sale of mortgaged/collateral property – payment of sale proceeds in satisfaction of debt – vacant possession obligation – enforcement including police assistance without further leave of court.
|
28 May 2025 |
|
Interlocutory injunctions restraining Article 146 removal processes require a high, exceptional public-law threshold and were denied.
* Constitutional law – Article 146 removal process – Courts should not lightly grant interlocutory injunctions restraining constitutional duties.
* Public law – High threshold for interlocutory relief: clear illegality or manifest unconstitutionality, irreparable harm, public interest balance.
* Constitutional procedure – Article 146(8) in-camera requirement; waiver and public hearing issues to be determined substantively.
* Procedural fairness – Prima facie determination without reasons not automatically void at interlocutory stage.
* Judicial recusal/disqualification – Allegations of bias and qualification of committee members are matters for substantive adjudication unless prima facie established.
|
28 May 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to prove title; respondent’s long possession and demarcation prevailed; claim dismissed.
Land law – declaration of title – civil standard of proof (preponderance of probabilities) – burden to prove root of title, mode of acquisition and acts of possession – demarcation and long possession as evidentiary factors – locus visit and committee demarcation evidence – costs awarded.
|
28 May 2025 |
|
A notice of appeal suspends enforcement of restitution orders; contempt-based enforcement and pre-judged adjudication attract prohibition.
Criminal law – restitution orders – effect of notice of appeal under section 29 Courts Act; Enforcement of restitution for immovable property – proper civil modes under sections 147A/147B Act 30 and Order 43 CI.47; Execution procedure – Notice of Claim and Order 44 rule 12; Jurisdictional limits on contempt/committal to enforce restitution; Judicial bias – appearance of predetermination and remedy by prohibition under supervisory jurisdiction (Article 132).
|
27 May 2025 |
|
Accused sentenced to fines and compensation for assault on public officer and related offenses.
Criminal Law – Assault on public officer – Causing harm – Destruction of public property – Guilty plea with explanation – Sentencing and compensation.
|
27 May 2025 |
|
Appeal allowed in part: count one conviction affirmed; count two conviction and sentence set aside; concurrent-sentencing principle reiterated.
Criminal law – Plea with explanation – Whether explanation amounts to admission or defence – Defrauding by false pretence – Ingredients of offence – Sentencing – Sections 302 and 303 Criminal Procedure Act – Concurrent versus consecutive sentences – Custodial sentence discretion and mandatory imprisonment exposure.
|
26 May 2025 |
|
Court entered a consent judgment fixing GH¢66,071 payable by instalments, freezing interest, and allowing execution with 36% interest on default.
Consent judgment – settlement recorded and entered as court order – principal sum fixed and interest frozen – repayment by monthly instalments – liberty to execute and claim 36% p.a. interest from specified date on default – suit struck out as settled.
|
23 May 2025 |
|
Court entered a consent judgment fixing a repayment plan with frozen interest, permitting execution and high interest on default.
* Commercial law – Debt recovery – Consent judgment – Parties agreed repayment schedule and frozen interest; default triggers execution and reinstated interest at 36% p.a.
|
23 May 2025 |
|
Respondent willfully disobeyed a preservation order; contempt application succeeded and a warrant for committal was issued.
Contempt of court – indirect/constructive contempt – failure to obey preservation order – ingredients: existence of order, knowledge, failure and willfulness – standard: proof beyond reasonable doubt – warrant for committal issued.
|
22 May 2025 |
|
Applicant lacked capacity to amend the judgment after assigning the claim and insolvency stay barred the application.
* Corporate insolvency – winding-up and stay of proceedings under Act 1015 – effect on enforcement applications
* Assignment of judgment/claims to bailout fund – transfer of locus standi to assignee/liquidator
* Bailout agreement – dispute resolution/arbitration and exclusivity of remedy
* Amicus curiae intervention by securities regulator in investor bailout scheme
|
22 May 2025 |
|
Applicant cannot amend the entry of judgment after assigning the judgment to a bailout fund; insolvency stay applies.
Assignment of judgment rights to bailout fund – effect on standing and capacity to sue; corporate insolvency/winding-up – statutory stay under Corporate Insolvency and Restructuring Act, 2020 (Act 1015); jurisdictional impact of arbitration/remedies under bailout agreement; amicus curiae addressing regulator's special standing and contractual assignment.
|
22 May 2025 |
|
Pleadings alleging co‑beneficiaries removed estate chattels disclosed a reasonable cause of action; strike‑out dismissed.
Civil procedure – strike out (Order 11 r18 CI 47) – whether pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action; intermeddling in an estate – civil remedy versus criminal prosecution; burden of proof where criminal allegation arises in civil proceedings; beneficiaries’ rights in household chattels. |
22 May 2025 |
|
Court refused to pause Article 146 removal process, struck confidential exhibits, and dismissed interlocutory injunction for lack of merit.
Constitutional law – Article 146 removal process – in camera proceedings – Article 146(8) confidentiality is structural and non-waivable; evidentiary exclusion of disclosed petitions. Public law remedies – presumption of constitutionality – high threshold for interlocutory injunctions against constitutional processes; absence of detailed reasons in executive communication not automatically fatal where consultative record may exist. Separation of powers – courts generally prefer post-facto review to preemptive judicial interference.
|
21 May 2025 |
|
Director breached fiduciary duties by engaging in competing business activities without disclosure.
Company Law – Directors' fiduciary duties – Conflict of interest – Use of confidential information – Breach by director.
|
21 May 2025 |
|
|
21 May 2025 |
