MENU
CLOSE
The Law Platform
© Copyright 2021 - 2026
At 10;10 the Supreme Court constituted by a single judge, H/L justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang rendered the decision of the Supreme Court on the interlocutory injunction motion filed by Hon. Kojo Oppong Nkrumah against the conduct of trial proceedings in some selected cases during legal vacation.
The Court in its about thirty minutes delivery recapped the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff-MP per his filed writ and arguments which may be read here. The Court canvassed the arguments of the parties relying on the principles for the grant of an injunction.
Preliminary point of law
On the 20th day of August, 2026, the Court dismissed the preliminary legal objection raised by the Applicant against representation of the Chief Justice by the Attorney-General. Justice Pwamang informed the Court of a full ruling on the preliminary point in the full ruling of the Court on the substantive motion.
The Court during its delivery spilt some ink on the reasoning behind its decision to dismiss the preliminary point. The Court relied on the Tsatsu Tsikata case where the exact point was raised and was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Substantive matter
Justice Pwamang relied and quoted salient portions of the cases of WELFORD QUARCOO No.1 v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ANOR [TLP-SC-2012-30], MICHAEL ANKOMAH-NIMFAH No.2 v. JAMES GYAKYE QUAYSON & 2 ORS [TLP-SC-2022-16] and others to lay out the principles of the law on injunctions. The Court reaffirmed the position of the law that for the court to grant an injunction against a public body, the Court ought to consider the seriousness of the subject matter and a slow approach in injuncting public bodies.
Justice Pwamang held that he shall determine the application of Mr. Oppong on the seriousness of the case brought by Mr. Oppong. He held that per the Statement of case of the motion for injunction, the Applicant failed to show the basis for discrimination alleged against the Chief Justice.
about 2 hours ago
2 days ago
18th Aug, 2026
14th Aug, 2026
14th Aug, 2026
No basis for different treatment
The Court took judicial notice of the cases at the Specialised Court and the High Court being heard during the vacation and held the view that, the said cases include financial crimes, auditor general surcharges, galamsey among others. The Court formed the view that there was no discrimination by the Chief Justice on the kind of criminal cases that may be heard during vacation.
On this basis, the Court formed the view that it shall be difficult to impugn the issue of the warrant of the Chief Justice on the basis of discrimination. The Court latched unto the claim of disruption of rest and breach of health of lawyers and Court officers.
Justice Pwamang held the view that vacation judges take their leave upon the resumption of the legal year and thus, they are not harmed by a warrant for sittings during the vacation. The Court further held the view that Court clerks and staff also enjoy their leave despite work during the legal vacation.
Private lawyers control their leave
The Court formed the view, per its ruling which was read to a very silent court that private practitioners are not bound by legal vacation proceedings to work during legal vacation proceedings. The Court held that private lawyers control their leave and thus, a warrant for sittings during vacation cannot harm the health of private practice lawyers.
The Court said, in a moderately paced reading of its decision that it is hard to establish a right against the Chief Justice binding on the Chief Justice not to issue a warrant for trial hearings during legal vacation.
The Court thus held that there is no binding law on the Chief Justice preventing him on issuing a warrant for trials during the vacation for lawyers as per the Civil Procedure rules. The Court thus rehashed its view of its difficulty to grant the injunction under the circumstances.
Expedition in criminal trials
Relying on article 19 of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, the Court held the view that the warrant of the Court was an attempt by the Chief Justice to ensure expeditious trial of criminal cases.
The Court formed the opinion that the fact that lawyers do not do trials during legal vacation does not warrant an injunction against expeditious hearings
Unlock premium articles, PDF downloads, cases and more
Learn how to subscribe