Representation of the People Law, 1992 (PNDCL 284) as the courts read it.

A statutory time-limit for instituting an election petition is not akin to an ordinary procedural timeline that can be extended or overlooked; it is a condition attached to the right of action itself. Since the timeline is a statutory precondition, defences founded on estoppel or acquiescence are clearly untenable, for estoppel is not, and cannot operate to suspend or override, the prescriptions of statutes—in this instance, Article 99 of the 1992 Constitution vis-à-vis PNDCL 284. In ABABIO AND OTHERS VS. KARIKARI AND ANOTHER [2001-2002] 1 GLR 381, it was held that: “Estoppel of all kinds was subject to the general rule that it could not override the laws of the land, i.e. where a particular formality was required by statute, no estoppel could cure the defect nor give jurisdiction to a court where statute denied it

THE REPUBLIC VRS. HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) TAMALE EX PARTE: 1. MATHEW NYINDAM DANIEL NSALA WAKPAL 1ST INTERESTED PARTY 2. THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION 3. THE CLERK OF PARLIAMENT [2026] SLR (SC) 22 · Supreme Court · 2026 · KULENDI JSC

The twenty-one (21) day timeline is therefore an express statutory prescription governing the invocation of the High Court’s jurisdiction in parliamentary election petitions. The statute does not provide any dispensation and/or discretion by which the Court may extend time beyond the mandatory period. The words, “shall be presented within twenty-one days”, are cast in unmistakably mandatory terms. Accordingly, the High Court must act strictly within the limits of the jurisdiction conferred by law, and it has no authority to entertain an election petition filed outside the prescribed twenty-one days. Needless to say, courts of law cannot, by adjudication, validate or excuse a breach of statute or law.. It is worth underscoring that the High Court’s jurisdiction in election petitions is not an inherent jurisdiction. It is a express jurisdiction conferred by Article 99(1)(a) of the Constitution and specifically regulated by PNDCL 284. The requirements in section 18(1) impose a mandatory pre-condition to the assumption of the jurisdiction. In other words, compliance with section 18(1) is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a proper invocation of the Court’s jurisdiction.

THE REPUBLIC VRS. HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) TAMALE EX PARTE: 1. MATHEW NYINDAM DANIEL NSALA WAKPAL 1ST INTERESTED PARTY 2. THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION 3. THE CLERK OF PARLIAMENT [2026] SLR (SC) 22 · Supreme Court · 2026 · KULENDI JSC