The Supreme Court on the 29th day of April, 2026 was a theater of illuminating legal arguments which kept every eye ball and ear on proceedings of the Court during the hearing of a motion filed by the Board of Governors of Wesley Girls High School in the now famous case of Shafic Osman v Board of Governors of Wesley Girls High School & 2 Others.

The Board of Governors of Wesley Girls High School applied to have the writ of Shafic Osman struck out. Their ground was simple: The Board of Governors of Wesley Girls High School was not a juristic person and thus lacked legal capacity to be sued by the Plaintiff. The appropriate person to be sue, according to the Board was the Trustees of the Methodist Church.

The exciting legal drama during the hearing was between the experienced Iris Aggrey-Orleans and the second and third most senior members of the Supreme Court Bench who sandwiched the learned Chief Justice during proceedings: Justices Pwamang and Tanko Amadu.

STAR OF THE MONTH - Professor Philip Ebow Bondzi-Simpson ESQ.

Nana Yaa Konadu Adadzi runs for Vice President of GBA Young Lawyers' Forum

Board of Governors of Achimota School hurdle

Justice Pwamang erected the first hurdle before Mad. Aggrey-Orleans. The hurdle was the decision of the Supreme Court on capacity in the fairly recent case of BOARD OF GOVENORS, ACHIMOTA SCHOOL v. NII AKO NORTEI & ORS [TLP-SC-2020-23]. Justice Pwamang was a member of the panel in the said case and offered a well articulated dissent.

Iris Aggrey-Orleans in admirable eloquence was at her facts-distinguishing best in her display at the Court. She eloquently distinguished the Achimota School case from the instant case, the 'Gey Hey' case, by submitting that Gey Hey was a mission school but Achimota School was not. Achimota School is a typical government school established and run solely by the State whereas Wesley Girls was established by the Methodist Church.

She further argued, more on the subject of capacity that the Board of Governors of Gey Hey is not a juristic person. According to her attractive arguments, the Board of Governors was just for management purposes and not clothed with any legal personality for proceedings to be brought against it. She emphasised with a look of satisfaction and concurrence from the Bar President, the learned Efua Ghartey who is lawyer for the school and a member of the Board of Governors that, Management for the school is different from legal capacity of the Board.

Effect of incapacity of Plaintiff different from Defendant

In what appeared to be a successful surmount of the Achimota School hurdle, Pwamang JSC erected another on Mad. Aggrey-Orleans' path. Justice Pwamang with his characteristic measured posture and wry smile suggested to Mad Aggrey-Orleans that the effect of incapacity of a Plaintiff is different from a Defendant, suggesting the failure of capacity of the Board of Governors of 'Gey Hey' shall not result in a nullity of the writ of Mr. Osman as prayed to be ordered by the 'Gey Hey' Board.

To this, the clever Aggrey-Orleans made a resort to the Pre-Tertiary Education Act, 2020 (Act 1049). She argued that per the functionality and not legal capacity status of the Board per section 37 of the Act and the sui generis status of 'Gey Hey' per section 4 of the Act, the effect of the incapacity of the Board ought to draw the Court towards orders dismissing the case of Mr. Shafic.

Amadu enters the fray

Justice Amadu looked beyond capacity. He set his gaze on the issues before the Court to be determined and the presence of others defendants whose capacity was not in doubt. Justice Amadu before completing his missile against the motion of the Board of Governors of 'Gey Hey' suggested to the President of the Bar seated right behind Mad. Aggrey-Orleans that he was unfazed by the shake of her head registering her disagreement to the cue of the Bench on the inevitable fate of the motion of the Board. This drew some laughter from the gallery and the Bar.

Justice Amadu erected his hurdle on the Delta Foods case. He suggested to Mad Aggrey-Orleans that a misdescription cannot affect a writ when there are serious issues to be determined. He further queried, upon dissatisfaction of the response received from the Applicant-Board on his Delta Foods case hurdle that, "If the door is shut, can the Plaintiff refile?". He suggested to Counsel for the 'Gey Hey' Board that "can't the Court in the spirit of Judicial economy" correct the anomaly suggested by the Board and move on to determine the matter which has serious consequences for school management in Ghana?

To this, Mad Aggrey-Orleans argued stridently, that the Supreme Court in a mountain of cases has fossilized the concept of capacity and thus, where a party does not have capacity, an action ought to naturally fail.

Justice Amadu shot back and suggested to Counsel for the 'Gey Hey' Board in his authoritative voice echoeing in the chamber of the Court where everyone was silent and listened attentively, that the Board is not the only Defendant in the matter and thus, their presence and absence does not disentitle the Court from proceedings to hear the merits of the matter. He suggested plainly to Counsel for 'Gey Hey' that a writ cannot fail for incapacity of a defendant especially where the Attorney-General is present as a party in the matter. He said "If there is a statutory body, your application shall fail"

Reliefs are against us

The learned Aggrey-Orleans who had the company of J.B Afrifa and others suggested to the Court that the reliefs of the Plaintiff are essentially against the Board. It was thus incumbent that the party who was to be affected by the reliefs ought to be properly brought before the Court.

Justice Amadu who appeared unimpressed by the argument suggested the absence of the Board from the matter shall not insulate it from not complying with the orders of the Court if it heard the merits of the matter and gave orders directed at the Board of 'Gey Hey'. He added, however, to the comfort of the Bar that his suggestion does not mean the Plaintiff shall automatically be successful in his claim, indicating the posture of the Court of not pre-judging the matter despite its vehement disagreement with the prayers and arguments buttressing the prayers of the Board on the writ of the Plaintiff-legal academic, Shafic Osman.

Respondents pray for dismissal

Counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent to the motion of 'Gey Hey' Board whose opposition had been invigorated by the hurdles of the Court captured the view of the Court in his argumentation and prayed for the dismissal of the motion. The Deputy Attorney-General, the learned Justice Srem-Sai also registered hia opposition and prayed for a joinder of the Methodist Church which the Court signaled its disapproval before he could land on that suggestion.

As if to have the last bite in legal arguments, Justice Tanko Amadu entering a civil procedure lecture mode quoted Order 43 rule 9 of C.I 47 on the effect and enforcement of a decision of a Court on a non-party in the event the 'Gey Hey' Board sought to be non-suited by a motion brought by them or suo motu by the Court.

CJ comes with ruling

The learned Chief Justice who Presided over proceedings which overflowed with exciting legal arguments read the decision of the 7-man bench dismissing the application of the Board of Governors of Wesley Girls High School. The Court thus adjourned proceedings sine dine after striking out the amicus brief of the Catholic Church on grounds of withdrawal for failure of leave before filing.