NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY AND ANOTHER vs. ELECTORAL COMMISSION; TEHN-ADDY vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ANOTHER [1995-96] 1 GLR 187

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS

APPLICATION by the New Patriotic Party and the Peoples Convention Party to the Supreme Court for an order staying indefinitely proceedings in a suit brought before the Supreme Court by one Tehn Addy against the Attorney-General and the Electoral Commission, ie

[p.188] of [1995-96] 1 GLR 187 suit No 7/96, for a declaration that the refusal of the Electoral Commission to register him as a voter was contrary to articles 42, 45 and 46 of the Constitution, 1992, until the Court of Appeal would have determined an appeal the applicants had made from the decision of the High Court in a different suit, suit No 915/.96. The facts are stated in the ruling of Abban CJ.

COUNSEL

Anyadi for the plaintiff.

Avah, Chief State Attorney, for the defendant.

Nana Akufo-Addo (with him Asiedu and Seidu Farouk) for the New Patriotic Party.

JUDGMENT OF ABBAN CJ

delivered the ruling of the court. In the present application, the applicants are asking the Supreme Court to stay proceedings in writ No 7/96. In the said writ No 7/96 the plaintiff, Brigadier (Rtd) Albert Nii Tehn-Addy, has invoked the original jurisdiction of this court contending that the conduct of the National Electoral Commission (the second defendant in that writ) in refusing to register him (the plaintiff) as a voter is inconsistent with and in contravention of articles 42, 45 and 46 of the Constitution, 1992. Article 2(1) of the Constitution, 1992 provides that:

“2. (1) A person who alleges that—. . .

(b) any act or omission of any person;

is inconsistent with, or is in contravention of a provision of this Constitution, may bring an action in the Supreme Court for a declaration to that effect.”

It is clear that in view of the first relief sought in the plaintiff’s writ No 7/96, the Supreme Court is the proper forum which the plaintiff, Brigadier (Rtd) Albert Nii Tehn-Addy, should resort to, and not the High Court or any other court. The title of suit No 7/96 reads:

“ Brigadier (Rtd) Albert Nii Tehn-Addy v (1) The Attorney-General (2) The Electoral Commissioner.”

It is quite obvious that the applicants are not parties in suit No 7/96. According to them, they are rather the plaintiffs in a different suit, misc

[p.189] of [1995-96] 1 GLR 187

No 915/96 which was filed by them in the High Court and which again, according to them, is now on appeal before the Court of Appeal.

The substance of the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants, which has been put before us this morning, is that this court should not hear the case of the plaintiff in writ No 7/96; and that the plaintiff’s case should be stayed indefinitely pending the final determination of the applicants’ claims in suit, misc No 915/96. In other words, this court should not adjudicate on the constitutional right of the plaintiff under article 2(1) of the Constitution, 1992 so long as the applicants’ claims in suit, misc No 915/96 have not been finally disposed of.

This contention is unacceptable, for it undermines the principle of lis alibi pendens. By this principle, the suit must be between two parties in one court in respect of a given matter and one of the parties goes to another court within the same jurisdiction seeking the same relief. In such a situation, either party may be put to his election as to the forum in which he would like to pursue his claim. In which case, the other suit may be dismissed or stayed pending the outcome of the other.

The situation in the present case is different. The applicants are trying to intermeddle unnecessarily in a case to which they are total strangers. In the circumstance, we are of the view that the application is unmeritorious and it is accordingly dismissed.

Costs to the plaintiff assessed at ¢250,000.

DECISION Application dismissed.

DRKS