The Court of Appeal, Kumasi has unanimously held that the Ghana Health Service as well as the District hospitals are juristic entities capable of suing and being sued. The appellate court made the decision in the case of EMMANUEL FRIMPONG MANSO v. ATWIMA MPONUA DISTRICT HOSPITAL & ORS [TLP-CA-2026-36] delivered on the 23rd day of July, 2026.

Background

The plaintiff sued a district hospital, the Ghana Health Service (GHS), and the Attorney-General for negligence following the death of his wife during childbirth, allegedly due to mismanagement of her pre-eclampsia and delayed anaesthetist intervention. The defendants applied to strike out the 1st and 2nd defendants (the hospital and GHS) from the suit, arguing they were not juristic persons capable of being sued. The trial High Court agreed, struck out both defendants, and directed the plaintiff to sue their appropriate heads instead in a fresh action. The plaintiff appealed the decision of the High Court.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal as filed for and on behalf of the Appellant by the learned Isaac Gyeabour Ofori, and reinstated the 1st and 2nd defendants, holding that the Ghana Health Service (GHS) and district hospitals are juristic entities with capacity to sue and be sued.

STAR OF THE MONTH - Professor Kenneth Agyemang Attafuah Esq.

According to the Court of Appeal in the lucid voice of Nabrese, JA, although the Ghana Health Service and Teaching Hospitals Act, 1996 (Act 525) does not expressly state this in a single provision, reading Sections 1, 4(1), 5, 53, and 56 together — alongside Articles 190 and 192 of the 1992 Constitution — shows GHS was established as a public corporation, capable of owning assets, employing staff, and incurring liabilities.

Per the unanimous decision of the Court, a statutory body empowered to act (and potentially cause injury) is impliedly suable, even without express "sue and be sued" language, relying on Taff Vale Railway Co. v. Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants [1901] AC 426: a body that can own property and employ servants must be taken to have been impliedly given the power to be sued for injuries caused.

According Nabere JA, the High Court's proposed remedy was unworkable. Even if the hospital/GHS lacked capacity, their "heads" (individuals) are not juristic bodies with perpetual succession either, so redirecting the suit to them made no legal sense. Per the decision of the Court as reported on our library, misjoinder/non-joinder does not defeat proceedings (Order 1 r.1(2) and Order 4 r.5, C.I. 47). Rather than striking out parties and forcing a fresh suit, the trial court should have used its powers of substitution/amendment to keep the case alive and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.