THE COURT SYSTEM

THE COURT SYSTEM

NOTE:
Three types of jurisdiction:
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: where a person goes to the trial court for the first time.

 APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Where a dissatisfied party brings his dissatisfaction to another

court. The court of appeal has only appellate jurisdiction, the high court has both appellate and
original jurisdiction and the circuit court has only original jurisdiction.

 SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION: this is the power the superior courts have in making sure the
lower courts are performing according to law. The Supreme Court exercises this over all courts.

Our court system is divided into two: the superior courts which are established by the constitution and
include the high court or regional tribunal court, the court of appeal and the Supreme Court in ascending
other.
 Quasi Judiciary: this is not part of the court system but has powers to adjudicate over cases.
Examples are CHRAJ , National Media Commission, National Labour Commission.

 Personnel: Judges are referred to as the bench, lawyers are the legal practitioners. The business of
advocacy in the court room is the barrister and the business of sitting in the office drawing up
cases is solicitors. But these are found in Britain. in Ghana they are all referred to as legal
practitioners.

NB: Commission of enquiry is not part of our judicial system, it is a fact finding body established by the
executive.
 Petition is used only in civil cases. They are used only in election and divorce cases.

 Director of public prosecutions takes care of criminal cases, solicitor general takes care of civil
cases and director of parliamentary drafts takes care of drafts by the legislature.

COMPOSITION OF COURTS
Article 126 of the 1992 Constitution :
(1) The Judiciary shall consist of :

(a) the Superior Courts of Judicature comprising –

(i) the Supreme Court;

(ii) the Court of Appeal; and

(iii) the High Court and Regional Tribunals

 (b) such lower courts or tribunals as Parliament may by law establish.

THE SUPREME COURT

By Article 129 and section 2(1) of Act 459, the supreme court shall be the final court of Appeal in Ghana.
Article 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution and section 3(1) of Act 459 grants the SC exclusive original
jurisdiction in all matters relating to the interpretation of the constitution; whether an Act was made in
excess of the powers conferred on parliament or any other authority or person by law or under the
Constitution. The combined effects of Article 2 and 1(2) which establishes the supremacy of the
constitution is that the court has power to declare void any law found to be inconsistent with the
Constitution. In the case of Sam (No 2) v Attorney General, the court declared that : “it is clear then
that the jurisdiction under Article 2(1) is a special jurisdiction available to citizens of Ghana only,
irrespective of personal interest.”
The court has appellate jurisdiction from the court of appeal and appellate jurisdiction with the exclusion
of the court of appeal relating to the conviction or otherwise of a person for high treason or treason by the
High Court. In the case of In re Parliamentary Election for Wulensi Constituency Zakeria v
Nyimakan, the court held that there was no right for further appeal from the Court of Appeal to the
Supreme Court in respect of an appeal from an election petition determined by the High Court under
Article 99(1) of the Constitution 1992. The Supreme Court also hears appeals from the National House
of Chiefs as is contained in Article 131(4).
Article 129(3) entitles the SC to depart from its previous decisions as and when it deems fit and all other
courts are bound to follows same. The Supreme court also has supervisory jurisdiction over all courts in
the country as contained in Article 132 whilst it has jurisdiction to the production of official documents as
in Article 135. Finally, the court can review its own decision as it sees fit as under Article 133. Rule 54 of
the SC Rules 1996 (CI 16) provides for two ways in which the court can review its decision :
- Proof of exceptional circumstances resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice-Agyekum v
Asakum Engineering and Construction

- Discovery of new evidence or matter that has come to light after the decision which with all due
diligence had not been within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced by him earlier
in re Krobo Stool (No 2): the court held that the lists of matters which might constitute
exceptional circumstances were not exhaustive or closed; that mere repetition of grounds which
had been dismissed , was no justification for the granting of the reviews and that the applicant
must show the existence of some fundamental and basic error affecting his substantial rights.

COMPOSITION OF THE SUPREME COURT

The SC consist of the CJ and not less than nine justices. Ordinarily, the court is constituted for the
exercise of its jurisdiction by not less than five SC justices except when it is reviewing its own decision
where it must be constituted by not less than seven justices of the court. (Articles 128 and 133). In the
case of Tsatsu Tsikata v CJ & AG : the plaintiff brought an action against the CJ and the AG under
Articles 2(1) and 130(1) under the 1992 Constitution for a declaration inter alia , that the Practice
Direction (Practice in the Empanelling of Justices of the Supreme Court ) issued on 10 January 2001 by
the acting CJ was in conflict with Articles 125(4) and 128(2) of the 1992 Constitution and therefore null
and void. The plaintiff raised a preliminary objection that it was against the rule of natural justice and the
principle nemo judex in causa sua for the CJ being a party to hear the action to empanel the court which
was to hear the action. The SC unanimously dismissed the action on the grounds that:
- The allegation of bias in the present case could not disable the CJ from performing his functions
under Article 144(6) of the Constitution 1992
 - The CJ had the prerogative of empaneling the court and was thus vested under Article 128(2) of
the 1992 Constitution with the discretionary power to administratively empanel all or the available
justices of the SC to sit on the case.

- The CJ had the discretion under Article 133(2) to empanel justices of uneven number but not less
than seven to sit on a review application brought before the SC

- The practice direction was not binding on the court or any person neither did it in any way
infringe articles 125(4) and 128(2) of the 1992 Constitution.

- In exercising his discretion generally, the CJ was required under Article 296(a) and (b) of the
Constitution 1992 to be fair and candid not capricious or biased by either resentment , prejudice or
personal dislike and the discretion should be exercised in accordance with the due process of law.

The CJ shall preside in sittings of the court and in his absence the most senior of the justices shall preside.
The qualification of court is based on high moral character and proven integrity in addition to a minimum
of not less than fifteen years standing as a lawyer.
THE COURT OF APPEAL
The court of Appeal has no original jurisdiction. It exercises only appellate jurisdiction. The court has
jurisdiction throughout Ghana to hear and determine, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, appeals
from a judgement , decree or order of the High Court and the Regional Tribunals and such other appellate
jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by the Constitution or any other law (Article 137(2) and Section
11(1) of Act 459). In In re Parliamentary Election for Wulensi Constituency ; Zakaria v Nyinakan,
the SC held that the Court of Appeal is the final court of appeal in election petitions, to the exclusion of
the SC.
An appeal to the Court leis as of right form a judgment, decree or order of the Hihg Court and the
Regional Tribunal unless the contrary is provided fro by the Constitution. The court can also hear appeals
form any judgment of the circuit court. (Section 11 (4) of Act 459). In exercising its jurisdiction, the
court is given all the powers , authority and jurisdiction vested in the court from which the appeal is
brought.
However, in the case of an interlocutory order r decision made or given by the circuit court , a person
aggrieved by such an order may appeal to the CA with the leave of the Circuit court. IF such leave is
refused by the CC , the aggrieved party can still appeal to the CA with the leave of the court (Section
11(5)).
COMPOSITION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL
The CA is composed of the CJ and at least ten other justices. Any three justices may constitute the court
for the conduct of its business. (Article 136 (1) and (2)). To qualify for membership of the court, a person
must be of high moral character and proven integrity and must have at least twelve years’ standing as a
lawyer.
Section 13 of Act 459 deals with certain powers granted the CA in criminal cases.
THE HIGH COURT
In Article 140(1) and section 14 of Act 459, the High Court has original jurisdiction in all civil and
criminal matters and such original, appellate and other jurisdictions as may be conferred on it by the
constitution or any other law. Also in article 33 and 140(2) of the constitution, the high court has
jurisdiction to enforce the fundamental human rights and freedoms enshrined in chapter 5 of the
Constitution. However section 14 stipulates that the high court shall have no power in the trial of the
offence of high treason.
Section 140(5) and section 21 of the Courts act stipulates that the high court has appellate jurisdiction
over all criminal matters emanating from the circuit courts and all appeals from the district courts,
juvenile courts and family tribunals.
In article 141, the high court shall have supervisory jurisdictions over all lower courts and in exercising
this jurisdiction may grant declaratory judgments and orders where appropriate.
Section 16 of the court Act 459 provides that the high court shall have supervisory jurisdiction over all
lower courts and any lower adjudicating authority and in the exercise of that jurisdiction, issue orders and
directions including warrant for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement of its supervisory
powers.
COMPOSITION OF THE HIGH COURT-ARTICLE 139 & SECTION 14
In terms of Article 139 of the 1992 Constitution, the High Court is composed of the CJ and not less than
twenty justices of the HC. For the conduct of its business, the court is constituted by a single judge or by
a single judge or by a single judge and jury; or by a single judge and assessors; or by three judges of the
trial of offences of high treason or treason as required by Article 19 of the Constitution.
Section 14 also enacts that the court shall consist of such other justices of the superior court as the Chief
Justice may by writing request to sit as High Court Justice for any period.
A person shall not be appointed as justice of the High Court unless he is a person of high moral character
and prove integrity and of at least 10 years standing as a lawyer.
THE REGIONAL TRIBUNALS
In terms of Article 143(1) of the 1992 Constitution, the Regional Tribunal has jurisdiction to try such
offences against the State and the Public interest as Parliament may by law prescribe. Under section 24(1)
of Act 459, the Regional Tribunal has jurisdiction to try offences arising under the Customs , Excise and
Preventive Service Management Law, 1993; Income Ta Decree Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement
and Sanctions) Law, 1990 and “any other offence involving serious economic fraud, loss of state funds or
property.” The tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to try a criminal offence if the trial requires the participation
of a jury or assessors –section 205 of Act 30. In exercising its jurisdiction, the Regional Tribunal has all
the powers conferred on the High Court by Act 459 or any other reenactment and has the power to issue
in criminal matters any order or impose any sentence which the High Court may issue or impose.
COMPOSITION OF THE REGIONAL TRIBUNAL
The Regional Tribunal consists of (a) the Chief Justice, (b) one Chairman; and (c) such members who
may or may not be lawyers as shall be designated by the Chief Justice to sit as panel members of the
tribunal and for such periods as may be specified in writing by the CJ The tribunal is duly constituted by a
chairman and not less than two and not more than four other panel members-(article 142(3) and section
23(2) ). When exercising its appellate jurisdiction, it is duly constituted by het chairman and any four
members. A person shall not be appointed as chairman of the Regional Tribunal unless he is qualified to
be appointed as a High Court judge (Article 142(4) ). Article 142(5) also provides that a person of high
moral character and proven integrity.

THE LOWER COURTS

CIRCUIT COURT-JURISDICTION
By section 41 of Act 459(as amended by …), a circuit court has the followring original jurisdiction (that
is to say jurisdiction in civil matters:
 In all personal action under contract or tort or for the recovery of any liquidated sum , where the
amount claimed is not more than GH 50,000 by virtue of Court’s Amendment Regulations which
came into force on 5th March 2015.

 In all actions between landlord and tenant for the possession of land claimed under lease and
refused to be delivered up;

 In all causes and matters involving the ownership, possession , occupation of or title to land;

 To appoint guardians of infants and to make orders for the custody of infants;

 To grant in an action instituted in the court, injunctions or orders to stay waste, or alienation or for
the detention and preservation of any property the subject matter of that action or to restrain
breaches of contract or the commission of any tort

 In all claims for relief by way of interpleader ( a procedure used to decide how conflicting claims
against the same person should be dealt with) in respect of land or other property attached in
execution of a decree made by a circuit court;

 Also where the amount claimed or the value of any land or property exceeds Gh…(check, ) the
court will nevertheless have jurisdiction to hear the case of the parties agree that it should do so.

COMPOSITION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT

The circuit court is composed of a single judge. This notwithstanding, the CJ , any justice of the superior
court of judicature or a chairman of a circuit tribunal nominated by the CJ may sit as a circuit court judge.
DISTRICT COURT
The jurisdiction of the district court is limited to cases with value of up to GH20,000 by virtue of LI 2211,
the Courts Amendment Regulations 2014. It also has summary jurisdiction in criminal matters for
offences punishable by a fine not exceeding … or for a term not exceeding two years. Every district court
shall have such other functions as may be conferred or imposed by any other enactment.
COMPOSITION OF THE DISTRICT COURT
The district courts are presided over by magistrates. Depending on their schedule, a magistrate would be
assigned to two or more courts. Section 46 of the Courts Act 459 gives the qualification of a magistrate as
:
- A person deost not qualify to be appointed a magistrate of a District court unless the person is of
high moral character and proven integrity and

- The CJ , any justice of the superior court of judicature or a circuit court judge nominated by the CJ
may sit as a magistrate of any District court.

Sitting of a District Court shall be held at such places and times as the CJ may direct. Subject to any such
directions , the sittings may be held at such places and times as the magistrate thinks appropriate.
British Jurisdiction
British jurisdiction first began with the coming of the white man, first for discovery purposes and later on
to trade in human beings. During this period they did not need more than temporary residence in the then
Gold Coast.
Slave trade was abolished in the early 19th century and the introduction of ‘legitimate trade’ led to a
paradigm shift. This concerned trade in minerals such as gold, diamond and bauxite. This required a more
permanent residence in towns and villages. This meant that the whites had to protect themselves and their
family from threat to lives as well as their property. The whites introduced the doctrine of Rule of Law as
they understood it into the Gold Coast. They first took legal control of the territories and secondly
modified or completely changed the pre-existing legal system to their advantage and comfort.
Examples of such modifications which were advantageous to them
• To protect themselves and their loved ones, murder and bodily harm were made felonies
punishable by death and long prison terms.

• To protect their properties- you could defend your property from invasion even unto death.

• To ensure exploitation of the natural resources they imported their contract law and commercial
law e.g. pacta sunt servanda, breach of contract, damages, specific performance.

• Adultery, a crime under custom, was not a crime under British rule so as to enable them to have
sexual relations with the natives

• To top it all they established a system of courts to enforce these laws with the help of a police and
prisons force they had previously established.

Character of the colonial project

The British assumed jurisdiction in the Gold Coast by taking control of these areas:
 Chieftaincy- In Oseadeeyo Addo Dankwah 111’s book, The Institution of Chieftaincy In
Ghana-The Future, he explained the effects of the British rule on chieftaincy in the then Gold
Coast. In the pre-colonial times, there were various chiefs of the various communities, who were
independent to each other and commanded respect from the indigenes. They were the custodians
of the land. However, with the advent of the British into the territory in 1821, the duties of the
chiefs were limited. As a result of lack of the proper means of communication and the strong
ethnic loyalty enjoyed by the chiefs, they ruled indirectly through them. The indirect rule limited
the role of the chiefs to only cultural and social matters whereas important matters such as finance,
external and internal trade, foreign affairs and to some extent, law and order were in the hands of
the colonialists. In Appiah v. Inkyi (1907) ren 455 it was held that since a chief was not a justice
of the peace no notice was required for an action to be instituted against him. Thus the colonial
courts eroded the hitherto judicial authority of the native chiefs. They also passed certain
ordinances which eroded completely chieftaincy power, influence and prestige. They include:

 Supreme Court Ordinance of 1874: this ordinance left uncertainties as to the extent of the
jurisdiction of the chiefs.

 Native Jurisdiction Ordinance of 1910: this ordinance gave the chiefs power to make bye
laws but must be in recognition of the S.C.O, thus, the Governor had power to restrict the
jurisdiction of any particular chief.
  Taxation- Raymond Atuguba, The Tax Culture of Ghana. In the pre-colonial era, the chiefs
set up the Native Treasury, which enabled them to tax the natives. This could be in the form of
cash or kind. The sources include property levies, funeral contributions, community welfare
levies, land rents, tolls, etc. Therefore, there existed a regime of taxation before the British came.
With the advent of the British, they abolished the Native Treasury, thus, making the chiefs to lose
their power to tax their subjects. They changed the system by using the chiefs to collect taxes for
them. They passed the Poll Tax Ordinance of 1852 to collect taxes to raise revenues for the
administration of the Gold Coast, independent of the British admin in Sierra Leone.

 Prison systems- In a research paper entitled Human Rights beyond the Prison Walls: A
Rights-Based Critique of Ghana’s Prisons System by Mr. Dominic Ayine, the state of pre-
colonial and post-colonial prison systems was enunciated. In the pre-colonial times, imprisonment
was in the form of banishment, the imposition of fines, flogging and execution. Imprisonment as a
form of punishment was not institutionalized. However, the British, on coming into the Gold
Coast, enacted the Prisons Ordinance of 1860, making incarceration as a mode of punishment.
Convicted criminals were placed in prisons custody.

 Akpeteshie- There was the extensive production of a local wine made from palm wine, corn and
cassava, popularly known as akpeteshie. The British however banned its production for the
reasons that, it limited the respect of law and cut the market of liquor imported into the colony as
it represented a loss in revenue. Moreover, the British had an interest in the Palm tree, which was
the major ingredient of the wine, as they trade in them. They also abused the minds of the
colonists that alcohol abuse, especially from akpeteshie was a serious health hazard.

 Fishing- eclectic

The process of the British taking complete control over the Gold Coast can be grouped into three:
 The process of taking legal control of the territories through self-serving legislation; orders in
council for the Colony, Ashanti and Northern territories and the British Jurisdiction Acts;

 Modifying or changing the pre-existing legal system to their advantage, importing the Common
Law, changing Customary Law through the use of the “Repugnancy Clause”; and

 Establishing the institutions that are necessary to enforce territorial acquisition and legal
modification-Military, Police, Prisons, Courts, etc.

Despite all this, the assumption of British jurisdiction was always tenuous as there was never any
complete military victory to justify the assumption of control over the various territories; there was no
solid evidence that the chiefs willingly ceded jurisdiction to the British. This affected only the Coastal
Chiefs, anyway. The Foreign Jurisdiction Act of 1843 was to settle this by stating that where there is a
doubt, we assume that the crown acquired jurisdiction as if by conquest or cession.
Illustrations of tenuous jurisdiction and how the colonial government wriggled out
R V. KOJO THOMSON
KING V. EARL OF CREWE
SOBHUZA V. MILLER
NYALI V. A-G
GOHOHO V. GUINEA PRESS LTD AND ANOR
CONCLUSION
 There were pre-existing institutional forms in Ghana that mere mutilated, and in some
cases, others constructed in their place, using as a key instrument, the Law.

 The law came later (and involved its own institutionalisation and the corresponding
mutilation of the pre-existing legal infrastructure) and was used in the service of the
colonial political, economic, and social agenda.

 In the two processes of institution building; extra-legal and legal, the one (extra-
legal) sometimes came first, but always required the legitimizing after word of the
law.

• The colonial institutions live on today (with the mutilated pre-existing institutions) and will not
collapse unless we collapse them.

 And we need to use the crafty processes and instruments that aided their construction to
deconstruct them.

The Gold Coast Before 1830

It would be nearly impossible to look at how the British influenced and changed the legal system of
Ghana without going back in history, prior to what we know now as the “famous” treaties and bonds. For
this is the place where change began, not at the signing of such pieces, like the Bond of 1844. Bonds and
treaties that were signed in the mid 1800’s were the result of what happened in the past.
First we must look at the definition and motive behind law. Every society finds it necessary to regulate
the behavior of its members: to make them stop certain acts that, for reasons obvious to them, are crucial
to the upholding of the society. At the same time they must control and make the people of the society
perform acts that are considered useful for the public. Thus, upon landing on the Gold Coast, the
beginning of constant struggle for power, jurisdiction, and rights began between European settlers and the
aboriginal rulers. Narratives of travelers from the early 1600’s to the 1700’s show that natives at no time
willingly submitted to any oppressive measures placed upon them by the Dutch, Danes, or the English.
There were many instances when the natives fought back with power against the settlers. One example
would be when the people of Elmina took into confines the Dutch governor and his officers in the castle
for ten months. Twenty or so years later in 1681 the English agent at Cape Coast Castle lost eighteen
slaves who had escaped into the town. The townspeople protected the runaways and after being
threatened by guns from the castle, they formed an army of over seven hundred people, and charged the
officers. These are only two of many examples that display the fight for freedom and rights of the natives.
In the late 1600’s the Dutch attempted to execute jurisdiction over criminal and civil matters, and to
assume the power of life and death in the coast towns. Prior to this new fight for jurisdiction things had
been congenial, but the English began to increase their trade and sought to build forts and factories. The
Dutch became threatened. It was in 1753 that the English and the Dutch finally became so aggravated
with the constant fighting between the natives over small debts that they chose to take matters into their
own hands. It was written in the Journal of the African Society that, “The solution of the question of the
ultimate control of the Coast was therefore forced on the Europeans by the action of the natives. The
existence of these disputes had the further effect of compelling the English to take up the task of
adjudication in the general quarrels of the natives. It was obviously a necessary condition to efficient
trading on the coast that these quarrels should be settled equitably, and it was from this point of view, and
not from any feeling of duty to the native population, the question of establishing a real government over
English settlement was first approached.”
In the year of 1821 under the rule of the King of England, Sir Charles McCarthy was appointed Governor
of the Gold Coast settlements. Upon his arrival he held a public meeting making a statement about the
new government and laws of the settlements. He then established petty debt courts at Cape Coast Castle
and other trading stations. He selected local merchants and officers who were open to help him, as
magistrates. The officers readily tried civil and criminal cases brought to them. The natives took this as an
opportunity to collect outstanding debts. From this point forward the jurisdiction and creation of laws
through treaties and bonds began to increase immensely. It is crucial to take into consideration when
reading this history that there are two sides being presented. As seen in the journal article, the European
straightforwardly blamed the need for jurisdiction on the natives. They believed that their “barbarous and
cruel” practices were beyond help, thus they needed order. The natives on the other hand easily could
have made the statement that it was the action of the settlers that caused the disruption. For example the
act to causing wars between the natives to increase the supply of slaves. Unfortunately the natives’ history
was not documented as thoroughly nor accurately. Reading this history, one must keep in mind the biases
created in history.

The Administration of George MacLean

At the beginning of the nineteenth century the British, Danes and Dutch all were extremely active along
the Gold Coast. The British and Danes supported the coastal towns, while the Dutch supported the
Asante. From 1821 onwards the British openly supported the southern states and took direct
responsibility of the administration in the forts. They handed over administration to British traders who
were given a £4,000 annual subsidy. The forts were run by a council in Cape Coast elected by British
merchants who had inhibited the area for more than one year. The council was led by a president elected
by its members. They were instructed to use their authority and jurisdiction only over those living in the
forts. They were specifically told to not interfere with the local politics.
By 18453 jurisdiction over the forts had spread out along the coastal states, with the exception of Elmina,
and for approximately forty miles inland. This amazing spread was a result of the work of Maclean, the
appointed president of the colonial council. He was introduced into the administration in October 1829 as
neutral arbitrator with the goal to better relations between the British and the natives. Maclean realized
that sufficient trade and the increase in missionary activities would not exist unless peace and order was
established in Ghana. He projected forward with belief that administering a judicial system into the Gold
Coast was the most appropriate step to take.
Maclean first great act was to conclude a treaty between the king of Ashanti and the British Government
with their allies on the 27th of April, 1831. In the clause, the treaty stated that the king of Ashanti would
deposit six hundred ounces of Gold in Cape Coast Castle, and deliver two princes of the royal blood as
security into the hands of the Governor for six years in order to keep peace. It is in the second clause that
he will see a movement towards British jurisdiction, it states: In order to prevent all future quarrels which
might lead to an infraction of the treaty, the following rules are agreed upon: (a) the path are to perfectly
open and free to all persons engaged in lawful comers, and persons molesting traders in any way to be
liable to punishment; (b) panyarring to be rigorously punished, and no chief or master to be held
responsibly for the crimes of his servant unless committed with his sanctions or by orders; (c) the King of
Ashanti renounces all title or right to any homage or tribute from the kings of Denkera, Assin, and others
formerly his subjects. The main objectives of this treaty was to secure, protect, and extend trade for the
British. It did so by removing all obstacles that reduced trade by lifting regulations that pertained to
trading routes. The treaty opened doors inland for the British, giving them not only the security of trade
but also the ability to make a move towards colonialism. It is also the first written modification or
amendment of the customary laws of the country made after conference with and by the local rulers.
For that, it is extremely significant and is the starting point for numerous more treaties that came in the
near future. After achieving the Ashanti peace agreement that was centered on “rules and regulations for
the better protection of lawful commerce” Maclean then designated a British governor at Cape Coast as
arbiter of all conferences between the signatories under the form of peace-keeper. Throughout the 1830’s
Maclean sought to gain and maintain peace among the southern states chiefs, and to stop human
sacrifices, attacks or raids on peaceful traders, panyarring, and abolish slave trading.
Upon his arrival Maclean left all criminal cases to the local people, yet in 1836 having not felt confident
in the present justice system carried out by the aboriginal leaders, Maclean made the decision to either
attend cases himself or send a representative from the council to make sure justice was really being
served. Gradually he asserted his right to hear all important cases and serious crimes. He also placed
magistrates in Dixcove, Anomabo, and Accra, while using the soldiers of these forts as police to ensure
that order was maintained.
By the early 1840’s peace had been established and British power and jurisdiction had been introduced
and administered in Ghana. Although, Maclean’s judicial power was great the British still had no legal
authority. British recognizing this found need to take up direct responsibility of the administration of the
forts. As a result, under the recommendation of the Parliamentary Select Committee of 1842, Captain Hill
was sent as governor of the forts. George Maclean was appointed judicial assessor. Upon Hill’s arrival he
got eight Fanti rulers to sign what has become known as the Bond of 1844. This bond introduced English
justice into the Gold Coast territories and abolished such customs as human sacrifice, but stopped short of
any direct intrusion in the government of these communities. The Bond of 1844 stated that:
1) The signatory chiefs recognized the power and jurisdiction that had been exercised in their states and
declared that “the first objects of law are the protection of individuals and property.”
2) Human sacrifice and “other barbarous customs, such as panyarring, are abominable and contrary to
law.”
3) The customs of the country were to be “molded in accordance with the general principles of British
law.”
Eventually through time Hill got eleven more chiefs to sign this bond. This sovereignty of the chiefs was
still recognized due to the fact that the new jurisdiction granted to the British was limited only to criminal
cases, and was to be exercised alongside the chiefs. Because Maclean was appointed judicial assessor the
practice of British law remained similar to that of the past until his death in 1847.
It is crucial to state that because of MacLean’s earlier position this was not important as it may seem. The
Bond of 1844 simply affirmed the existing judicial situation on paper and recognized MacLean’s former
administration for what it had created. It is relevant to repeat that at no time did the local chiefs hand over
direct responsibility of all judicial matters. The judicial assessors were to act as assistants to the chiefs in
cases. Trials were to take place in front of the queen’s officers and the chiefs of the area. The sentences
were carried out by the aboriginal leaders.
There are two extremely important factors that decreased the authority of the chiefs and increased the
British power, which is seen quickly after the death of Maclean. First, Cruikshank, an Englishman who
lived on the Gold Coast for eighteen years and acted as governor for some time, sums it is up quite clearly
when he states: ‘Indeed, we had no legal jurisdiction in the whatever. It had never been conquered or
purchased by us, or ceded to us. The chiefs, it is true, had on several occasions, sworn allegiance to the
crown of Britain: but by this act they only meant the military services of vassals to a superior. Native laws
and customs were never understood to be abrogated or affected by it.” This is a common error that was
made by many of the British. This is an error pertaining to allegiance, an error caused by probably an
unclear notion which many have between sovereignty and independence, and in no way lessened by an
imperfect knowledge of the position of a protected person according to local customary laws. It is clear
that upon the signing of the bond the signatory chiefs felt they were gaining British protection.
Unfortunately the British saw the singing of the bonds to be a clear giving of jurisprudence in the
administration of local justice. The African rulers did not see the word allegiance in the same context as
the British, thus they had assumed quite unreasonably that in signing protection treaties African rulers
willingly parted with their sovereignty.
Secondly, lack of money and availability of the local people between 1844 and 1850 increased the use of
British law. When local disputes broke out the people needed administration. The chiefs and headmen
were generally too expensive to go to. They often required extensive gifts, fees, and fines. The
magistrate’s courts, before 1850, only required a small sum for summons, thus fewer material resources
came to the magistrates court. Although the magistrates’ court had legal jurisdiction on only criminal
cases, it was more often used for minor disputes by the local community. In Cape Coast and Anomabo in
the fourth quarter of 1944 there were sixty-one out of eighty-eight minor dispute cases, such as small
debts. Only six serious cases, pertaining to murder and robbery were acted on. The remaining were
domestic complaints, including minor assaults, disputes over slaves and pawns, and complaints by slaves
over their treatment. In the second quarter of 1845, 128 cases were tried. Ninety-one of those cases
regarded small debts, there were two cases of murder, six thefts, plus minor disputes. In 1851 one single
magistrate would hear approximately one hundred-twenty cases a month, most of which dealt with small
claims. The magistrate’s court became quite clearly a popular place to go to deal with disputes. The
majority of these cases were not in any way required to be acted upon in the magistrate’s court, rather
they were independently brought there due to financial reasons. In connection to Maclean’s office, his
original intention of assuming authority in an area in which indigenous leadership seemed to be
temporarily lacking, he created a flexible system for widespread involvement in the internal affairs of the
states of the Gold Coast, and especially in the lives of the residents of the coast towns. Maclean’s system
was expanded, institutionalized and made more inflexible by his successors. The availability of the
alternative system of justice served to further weaken the authority of the chiefs and to embroil the British
more deeply in the daily lives and affairs of the country. Although this may have not been Maclean’s
initial objective, through colonialism and the various treaties that he created it did occur.

Part Three
Britain Obtains Direct Responsibility
After the death of George Maclean all judicial practices began to turn against the local rulers. Treaties
created during Maclean’s time in office became mere acknowledgments of what was. The beliefs and
practices that were used began to hold little to no importance. By the 1865 the bond of 1844 was no
longer relevant. Rather than the chiefs deferring to the British courts in selected situations, the British
claimed the authority over not only what was or was not to be heard in the chiefs courts, but also over the
very existence of the courts.
The British enacted the first law providing for a Supreme Court of Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction on 26th
of April, 1853. The chief justice was the judicial assessor at that time. The law included “the right of a
suitor to appeal from the decision of his chief to a council of wise men and captains.” The Ordinances
granted jurisdiction to the Legislative council to hear appeals. The new court of appeal consisted of the
governor, the judicial assessor, and at least one neutral council member. Instantly, after this law was put
into order six amending Ordinances were passed. The last being enacted on the 21st of November, 1866.
This particular law made better provisions for the administration of justice within the settlements on the
Gold Coast and its dependencies.
The mishandling by the British of the Asante invasion of 1863 is yet another point in which loss of
control for the aboriginal leaders occurred. The invasion led to the creation of the British Parliamentary
Select Committee of 1865. Its mission was to go into the affairs of the British West Africa settlements
and make sure there was no further extension of British power and jurisdiction, nor any more treaties
offering protection. It was also to “encourage in the natives the exercise of those qualities which may
render it possible for us more and more to transfer to them the administration of all the governments, with
a view to our ultimate withdrawal from all except probably Sierra Leone.” These orders were not
completely different. Instead of withdrawing the British chose to fight further in. In 1866 they exiled
Aggrey, the king of Cape Coast, when he openly objected to appeals against the decision of his court
being sent to the British court. Furthermore they restored their negotiations with the Dutch. This led to an
exchange of forts in 1867 and four years later a buying of all Dutch forts on the coast of Ghana.
Three years later the British claimed the whole of southern Ghana as a crown colony. Speculations have
been drawn as to whether or not the natives fought the new ruling of the British. Aside from Aggrey’s
strong attempt, the people made a serious effort by creating the Fanti Confederation in 1869. This
confederation was created in hopes of establishing, for the natives, an improved form of government.
Although, the leaders of the group were treated as conspirators and traitors. Some were prosecuted while
others were unlawfully imprisoned. The Fanti Confederation was thus destroyed. This confederation was
only one movement formed to help the local people and fight against the jurisdiction of the British and
their settlements.
The British Crown acquired absolute power and rights. The circumstances in which this power was
gained should be clearly understood and repeated: at no point did the aboriginal rulers give sole power
and / or rights to the British. In 1869 focus was drawn to certain complaints about the administration of
justice. It was said that there was too much law and little equity in the assessor’s court: that lawyers were
permitted to intervene to an “extent ruinous to unsuspecting natives and to the destruction of all
confidence in the British courts of law.” Lord Granville, the Secretary of State for the Colonies admitted
this to be true and brought forth the apparent need for a judicial assessor. It was also decided that in order
to have a functioning government the assurance and co-operation of the neighboring chiefs and headmen
was crucial, along with the ability that native questions should be decided by the chiefs. Of course
revisions and the assistance of an assessor were necessary, along with the final decision of the Governor.
Upon arrival of the new judicial assessor and chief magistrate it was found that the commandants held
commission of justices of peace, but all too often, as seen in Part Two, they dealt with civil actions such
as small debts, and not criminal cases. This was opposing the laws created earlier, yet it had been going
on since the mid 1840’s for various reasons. The chief magistrate instantly questioned the exercise of
jurisdiction and the use of law. On the 9th of May, 1872, he stated, ‘With the progress of the country, it
becomes the more expedient to obviate the risk of miscarriage of embarrassment in the administration of
justice in any of its branches.’ 3 During this time a war between Elmina and Fanti land had broken out.
The Ashanti monarchy had attacked numerous settlement outside it land barriers, badly wounding many
of the villages. Many European armies choose to intervene, and eventually got the Ashanti back onto their
own ground. It was on July 24th 1874 the detached settlement from this war became a colony.
The Supreme Court was transferred all rights and jurisdiction connected with administration of justice,
which the queen had acquired by treaty and other state document that held lawful authority. In the
proclamation of 1874, which it became known as, the extent of the queens jurisdiction were defined to
included ‘the determination of appeals from the native tribunals to magistrates, the supervision and
regulation of native prisons, and the by authority of the government of disputes arising between different
chiefs and rulers.” 4 The aboriginal rulers at no time had in mind to give up all jurisdiction, power, and
right to the British authority. They never agreed to become British subject, nor cut themselves free from
their past and traditions. Originally no right or power was to be used by the queens officers unless under
the consent of the aboriginal leaders. The British crown and the authority manipulated the jurisdiction and
power of the aboriginal leaders, stripping from them what was rightfully theirs. It is seen many friendship
and protection treaties between England and Gold Coast that this holds true.
Two examples of native rulers and their people being deprived of their judicial powers and other
sovereignty right over time can be seen in the Sefwi treaty of1887 and the Adansi treaty of1895. The
Sewfi treaty dealt with the dismemberment of the Ashanti kingdom. The principal parts stated that:
ii. The Governor of the Gold Coast colony hereby takes the country of Sefwi under the protection of
Great Britain.
ii. The Government of Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India, will not
prevent Kweku Inguan, King of Sefwi, or his lawful successor either in the levying of revenues
appertaining to them according to the laws and customs of the country, nor in the exercise of the
administration thereof; and Her Majesty’s Government will respect the habit and customs of the country,
but will prevent human sacrifices; and slave dealing, when brought to the notice of the government, will
be punished according to the laws of the Gold Coast Colony.’
The Adansi treaty of 1895, similar to many treaties of the time period declares in article seven that the:
‘King or his chiefs and principal head man and their lawful successor will not be prevented from levying
customary revenue appertaining to them according to the land and customs of their country, nor in the
administration thereof; and Her Majesty’s Government will respect the habit and customs of the country,
but will not permit human sacrifice; and slave dealing, whenever discovered, will be punished according
to Gold Coast laws.” These treaties were not used as a form of protection for the settlements. Rather the
treaties were a form of threat towards those rulers who had not signed treaties with the British. As soon as
the protection and friendship treaty was signed the ruler and his people would be considered conquered.
In 1901 the Ashanti was in the order of Council declared to be British possession by right of conquest, as
well as Gold Coast territory. In and around 1910 some Supreme Court decisions declared that there was
no aboriginal judicial tribunal, unless under the Native Jurisdiction Ordinance. (The Native Jurisdiction
Ordinance was destroyed by the Supreme Court Ordinance in 1876.) It was proclaimed that on the
principles of English law, the English sovereign is the only foundation of justice and honor. This concept
blatantly objected the foundation of the treaties and their obligations. It was from this point on, the will
and beliefs of the crown ran the country, not the wish of the people, nor the aboriginal ruler’s
constitutional history.

Conclusion
“The Sovereignty of Ghana resides in the people of Ghana in whose name and for whose welfare the
powers of government are to be exercised in the manner and within the limits laid down in this
Constitution.”*1 This is the very first clause in the Ghana,” the sovereignty that was re-established on
March 5, 1957. Kwame Nkrumah and other members of the Convention People’s Party had fought for
nearly ten years to regain independence from the British. The British having seen the support of the
people of Ghana, eventually, after struggling and fighting the independent parties, agreed to pass the
motion calling for independence. At which point Nkrumah’s rule began in 1957 and lasted all the way
through to 1966. In 1960 the adoption of the new republican constitution was created. Although
independence was established many traditional practices had been lost over the hundreds of years of
colonialism. The legal system had become one resembling that of the British courts and lawyers, which is
seen both in criminal and civil proceedings, along with today’s constitution. The judiciary section of the
Ghana National Constitution consists of twenty-one pages and thirty-six clauses. When moving forward
to the Chieftaincy section one would see that it includes four pages and holds seven clauses, proving that
the power of the chief is legally near to insignificant. There has indeed been the establishment of a
National House of Chiefs and a Regional House of Chiefs to “preserve” tradition and customs, yet they
are all under the ruling of the Supreme Court and Parliament. “The National House of Chiefs shall have
appellate jurisdiction in any cause or matter affecting chieftaincy which has been determined by the
Regional House of Chiefs in a region, from which appellate jurisdiction there shall be an appeal to the
Supreme Court, with the leave of the National House of Chiefs, or the Supreme Court.” Thus reminding
the reader that that the chiefs sovereignty is a concept of the past.
In 1865 the King of Cape Coast, John Aggrey, criticized Maclean saying that he “in a very peculiar,
imperceptible and unheard-of manner, wrested from the hands of our kings, chiefs and headmen their
power to govern their own subjects.” In opposition to the rise in British jurisdiction he further wrote to
Governor Conran in 1866 “the time has now come for me, to record a solemn protest again the perpetual
annoyance and insults that you persistently and perseveringly continue to practice on me in my capacity
as legally constituted King of Cape Coast…. the government in England has expressed it desire that we,
kings and chiefs of the Gold Coast, are to prepare ourselves for self-government and no protection.’ As
seen above this self-government did not come about for another one hundred years. ‘The perpetual
annoyance and insults,’ also continued for one hundred years. Today Ghana is ruled by one president and
the foundation of social rules is based on the constitution that holds little support for the traditions and
customs of the past.

History of Ghana Court System

The current court system is directly descended and is a beneficiary of the British Court System which was
introduced to the Gold Coast.
Timeline
1800s: foreign powers came to the shores of Ghana seeking riches (gold, minerals, slaves, etc). Each left
due to the unfavorable and unstable environment and when the slave trade was abolished, only the British
were left, carrying out trades on the coast of Sierra Leon. Their court system at that time was restricted to
the merchants who were involved in the trades until one Cpt. McLean began to administer justice for the
natives in British courts. The natives preferred the British court system and the justice it provided. The
Chiefs, who were losing acclaim/influence appealed to the Crown to get McLean to stop his actions. The
Crown investigated and agreed that what McLean was doing was, in fact, an infringement on the
jurisdiction of the Chiefs. However, they also realized that McLean’s actions could give them control of
the people and the lands.
1843: British Settlement Act empowered the Crown to legislate for British settlements in West Africa and
to delegate its authority to resident officers
1844: 6th March, Fanti chiefs and other tribal leaders agreed to bring major legal disputes before the
Crown as well as the chiefs of the districts (Bond of 1844)
An Order in Council extended British Jurisdiction to areas where it had been acquired by agreement or
usage; authorized the trial of locals; required that in default of local customs, the law of England be
applied; appointed McLean as Judicial Assessor and stipendiary Magistrate
1853: Supreme Court Ordinance established Supreme Court with civil and criminal jurisdiction within
forts and settlements
1874: Brits officially took the Gold Coast as a colony again (including Lagos)
1876: Ordinance #4 re-established the Supreme Court with Chief Justice and jurisdiction over the whole
of Gold Coast. This is the time when ordinances, the rules of common law, and the doctrine of equity
were introduced to the Gold Coast. Ordinance also allowed Customary Law to be applied when the
dispute involved natives who did not request British law; on the condition that the customary law being
applied was in line with the rules of equity, natural justice, and good conscience.
Question: did the Supreme Court Ordinance of 1876 take away judicial power from the Chiefs? See
OPPON V AKINIE, where it was held that the Ordinance did not take away power from the chiefs
Evolution of the court system from 1957 - 1992
Court structure from independence in 1957-1960
Immediately before the Gold Coast became an independent country, the courts comprised principally the
Supreme Court of Judicature and the magistrates’ courts. The Supreme Court was presided over by the
Chief Justice who sat with judges appointed from time to time by the Governor. Below the Supreme
Court were the magistrates’ courts and juvenile court which exercised summary jurisdiction. Appeals
form the magistrates’ courts went to the Supreme Court. Whilst appeals from the Supreme Court went to
the West African Court for Appeal, and eventually from there to the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council. In addition to the courts discussed above, there existed a number of statutory native courts which
had sprung out of the traditional native court system.
At the time of independence in 1957, the structure of the courts were as follows:
 The Supreme court consisting of the Court Appeal and the High Court; and

 The magistrate and juvenile courts

By this structure, the Court of Appeal became the final appellant court of Ghana. The following changes
were effected to the structure between 1958 and 1960:
 The Court of Appeal Ordinance was passed. It abolished appeals to the West African Court of
Appeal

 The post commissioner of assize and civil pleas was created. The commissioners tried certain
criminal civil offences but were, inter alia, barred from hearing appeals from magistrates’ courts
in criminal courts. Only citizens of Ghana who were lawyers with a minimum experience of five
years’ practice at the Bar were qualified to be appointed commissioners

 Local courts were created to replace the native courts. They were presided over by local court
magistrates. Although they exercised judicial functions, the courts were placed under the Ministry
of Interior

Court structure under the first republic-1960-1966

When Ghana became republic in 1960, a new Courts Act was passed. It set out the court structure as
follows:
 The supreme court

 The high court

 The circuit courts

 The district and juvenile courts and

 The local courts

CA 9 abolished the post of commissioner of assize and civil pleas. It also repealed the courts Ordinance,
Cap 4 as amended, as well as the Court for Appeal Ordinance. The 1960 Republican Constitution
abolished appeals to the Privy Council and the Supreme Court thus became the final appellate court of the
land. The Convention Peoples’ Party Government of the late Dr. Kwame Nkrumah also passed the
Criminal Procedure which established a special criminal division of High Court. This was a very
powerful court set up to try certain specified criminal offences. Its decisions were final. The difference
between this court and all other adjudicating bodies set up by subsequent governments to try specified
criminal offences was that Dr Nkrumah’s special criminal courts were presided over by a criticizing judge
and two other panel members. That court tried only one case-STATE V OTCHERE
Other inferior courts that sprang up during the period are the rent tribunals and rent committees which
were established under the Rent Act, 1963 and related regulations. There to try civil suits involving
landlords and tenants. These courts had concurrent which are still in existence are presided over by rent
officers who are tribunals do not form part of the Judicial Service but rather under the Ministry of Works
and Housing. The decisions of these tribunals are however appealable to the district courts.
Court structure under the Second Republic: 1969-1972
The second republic was ushered in by the 1969 constitution. Article 102(4) of that constitution and the
consequential Courts Act, 1971 provided the court structure as follows:
 The Supreme Court

 The Court of Appeal

 The High Court

 The circuit court

 The district court grade I and the juvenile court and

 The district court grade II

The Supreme Court once more become the final appellate court of the land. The Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeal and the High Court comprised the Superior Courts of Judicature; while the circuit court,
the district court and the juvenile court comprised the inferior courts. The constitution made provision for
the establishment of special adjudicating bodies to adjudicate over chieftaincy disputes. They were the
judicial committees of divisional councils, judicial committees of traditional, judicial committees of the
regional House of chiefs.
Court structure under the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council Government: June to September
1979
The Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) Government, which was headed by Flt Lt JJ
Rawlings, did not affect any change in the court structure as it existed immediately before June 1979.
However, that military regime set up a special court under the armed forces revolutionary council (special
courts) decree to try specified criminal offences. The court was to be composed of a judge advocate and
adult Ghanaians ‘able to speak and read the English language with a degree of proficiency’ that would
enable them to actively participate in proceedings. It decisions were final and not appealable to any court.
By a subsequent amendment, it was decreed that all its decisions were valid notwithstanding any defect in
the composition of the panel.
Not much was known of the special court or who actually sat to try cases in them. The operations and
procedures of these courts were shrouded in mystery, but people were known to have been fined,
imprisoned, executed of had their properties confiscated by orders from those courts. In one case, namely,
REPUBLIC V DIRECTOR PRISONS; EX PARTE SHACKLEFORD where a warrant was alleged
to have been issued and signed from the court, the signature of the official who authorized the warrant
could not be deciphered and the name of the signatory unknown. In that case, the accused was
incarcerated for having been tried by that court. He denied knowledge of any trial. An application for an
order of habeas corpus was opposed by the State for the reason that he was tried, convicted and sentences
for three years by the special court. No record of the trial could be produced. The application was handled
by Cecilia Koranteng-Addow J.
She granted the application and ordered the release the applicant forthwith. She was one of the three
judges who were murdered during the rule of the Provisional National Defence Council. Some political
scientist cite this case as one of the court cases the judge handled by which incurred the wrath of some
soldiers and for which she was abducted in the night from her residence in June 1982 and murdered in a
military range where her charred body was later found. Before handling over to a civilian government, the
AFRC established a special tribunal by the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council Decree, 1979 which
took over and continued the trial of cases pending before the special courts and tribunals established by
the AFRC government.

Court structure under the third republic: 1979-1981

Between 1979 and 1981, a third civilian government of the Third Republic headed by President Hilla
Liman. It was ushered in by the 1979 constitution. Under that constitution, the structure and hierarchy of
the courts remained the same as they existed under the 1969 constitution and act 372. Section 17 of the
transitional provisions of the 1979 constitution granted immunity to the government and officers for
actions taken during that military regime of the AFRC. By implication, AFRCD 23 and the 1979
constitution abolished all other special courts established by the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council.
The structure and hierarchy of the courts under the 1979 constitution became as follows:
 The supreme court;

 The court of appeal;

 The high court;

 The circuit court;

 The district court grade I; and

 The district court grade II

Court structure under the provisional national defence council government: 1981-1992
The court structure under the Third Republic was intact when the army took over the governance in
December 1981. The army officers who led the change of government established the Provisional
National defence council. Between 1981 and 1992, the courts continued to operate as they were doing
under the previous civilian government that he ONDC replaced. Additionally, in 1982 the PNDC
Government made a fundamental change in the court system by establishing for the first time public
tribunal.
The 1992 constitution
The 1992 constitution which introduced dramatic changed to the structure and hierarchy of adjudicating
institutions in the country. The 1992 constitution abolished all but one of the public tribunals operating
under the PNDC-articles 125(3) and 126(1); but did not alter the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal of
the High Court. It also created the Regional Tribunal whose chairman was equated with the High Court
judge in respect of qualifications and conditions of service-article 142(4). Article 126(1) (b) of the 1992
constitution further made provision for the establishment of the lower courts and tribunal. Pursuant to this
article, act 459 was enacted in 1992. It established the circuit tribunal and vested it with the entire
criminal jurisdiction of the circuit court. With the enactment of act 459, the circuit court was left with
only civil jurisdiction. Act 459 also established the community tribunals which replaced the district courts
grades I and II and all their sub divisions.
However, even before it became fully operational, act 469 was amended by act 464 which empowered the
circuit court to exercise the criminal jurisdiction of the circuit tribunal under section 44(1) and 92) of act
459, in addition to the jurisdiction in civil matters-act 464, section 1. Act 464 similarly empowered the
district court grade I in existence immediately before the coming into force of the Act 459 to exercise the
jurisdiction of community tribunal under sections 47 and 48 o act 459-act 464, section 3. The district
courts grade I therefore came into existence in 1993 under act 464. The lower courts and tribunals as
established under act 459 as amended by act 459 as amended by act 464 thus comprised.

2002-2011
By various amendments of act 459 which have been explained in paragraphs 5 and 6 supra, the structure
and hierarchy of the courts and tribunals as at time this edition went to press in 2011 were as follows:
The superior courts and lower courts
As already stated, the 1992 constitution, article 126 made provision for the superior and lower courts.
Superior courts
The Supreme Court
This is the highest court in Ghana which also doubles as the constitutional court. Apart from election
petitions, the Supreme Court is the final appellate court of the land. It had supervisory jurisdiction over all
courts in the country-article 132 and exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether or not an official
document should be produced in court-article 135. In addition, it has original jurisdiction in all matters
relating to the enforcement or interpretation of any provision of the 1992 constitution and any case arising
out of the issue whether or not an enactment was made in excess of the powers conferred on Parliament
or any other authority. Its composition, jurisdiction and powers are detailed out in articles 128-135 of the
1992 constitution as well as in act 459, sections 1-9. The four main means by which cases may be filed in
the Supreme Court are:
 By appeals under articles 129 and 131(from the Court of Appeal, the judicial committee of the
National House of Chiefs or the High Court(treason cases)

 By an application for the judicial review or prerogative wits under article 132

 For the review of its decisions under article 133 and

 By the invocation of its original jurisdiction on constitutional matters-under article 130 by a writ
for the interpretation or enforcement of a provision in the 1992 constitution, a declaration on the
legality of an enactment, a reference by way of a cases stated by a court below, or for the
determination on the production of an official document in court under article 154

The court is not bound to follow its previous decisions or decision of other courts-article 129
The court is duly constituted by five of its members on appeals, on an issue relating to the production of
an official document, on an application for prerogative writs; or by seven or more of its members when it
reviews its decision. By directives issued by the Chief Justice, the court is constituted by nine or more of
its members when it hears any constitutional case. There are no divisions in the Supreme Court.
The court of appeal
The court of appeal is immediately below the Supreme Court. It hears only appeals from decisions or
orders of the High Court, the Regional Tribunal and the circuit court (in civil matters only). It has no
supervisory or original jurisdiction-TAKYI V GHASSOUB (GHANA) LTD.
The court is duly constituted by three of its members sitting on any of the matters over which it has
jurisdiction. It has two main Divisions, namely, the Civil and Criminal Divisions. The power,
composition and jurisdiction of the court are detailed out in articles 136- 138 of the 1992 constitution and
in Act 459, section 10-11.
The Court of Appeal is the final appellate court in election petitions, to the exclusion of the Supreme
Court-IN RE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION WULENSI CONSITUENCY ZAKARIA V
NYAMIKAN, which held that there is no right of appeal from the Court of Appeal from an election
petition determined by the High Court under article 99(1) of the 1992 Constitution. Election petition
apart, all decisions of the court of Appeal are appealable to the Supreme Court, section 131(1).
The high court of justice
The High Court is immediately below the Court of Appeal but comes above the circuit court. It had
original civil and criminal jurisdictions in all matters except those expressly excluded by the constitution
or by statute. It has supervisory jurisdictions over all lower courts and any lower adjudicating authority-
article 141. All decisions of the High Court are appealable to the Court of Appeal
Masters of the High Court
Act 459, section 22 has provisions on the appointment of Masters of the High Court by the Chief Justice.
The position is reserved for lawyers of not less than ten years standing at the Bar. Currently there are no
masters at post.
The lower courts
Circuit courts
The court is positioned immediately below the High Court and the Regional Tribunal but above the
district court. It forms part of the lower courts. When the tribunals were first established under the 1992
constitution, the circuit court had only civil jurisdiction while the circuit tribunal had criminal
jurisdiction. Act 464, section 1 conferred on the circuit court the power to exercise the criminal
jurisdiction which was exercised by the circuit tribunals. This power was confirmed by act 620, section
696). When the circuit tribunals were tribunals were abolished by Act 620, section 6(5), the circuit court
took over the jurisdictions but within the limits of act 459 as amended by act 464 and act 620. It has
jurisdiction over contracts and torts actions and recovery of liquidated sum not exceeding GH₵10.000,
actions involving occupation, possession and title tot land and landlord and tenant cases. It is presided
over by a single circuit court judge. The powers, composition and jurisdiction of the court are detailed out
in act 459, section 40-42 as amended by act 464 and act 620. In the regional capitals, some of the circuit
courts have divisions such as Armed Robbery Division and Narcotic Division.
Circuit tribunals
This was a court which used to try only criminal cases. It was presided over by a panel of three members,
the chairman of whom had the same qualification as a circuit court judge, that is a minimum of five years’
experience as a lawyer. Its powers, composition and jurisdiction were set out in act 459, section 43-45. It
was ranked on the same level as a circuit court. The court was abolished by act 620, section 6(5).
Community tribunal
When act 459 was passed in 1992, the community tribunal was the lowest court of the land. It replaced
the district courts grades I and II. It tried both civil and criminal cases. It was presided over by a panel of
three members, the chairman of whom was a lawyer preferably f three years’ standing or a person with
judicial or legal experience. The other two panel members were not required to be trained lawyers. Its
powers, composition and jurisdiction were set out in act 459, section 46-53. The court was abolished by
act 620, section 6(7).
District court
Act 459, section 46(1) established the community tribunals in 1993 to replace the district courts. In the
same year, act 464 was passed. By act 464, the district court grade I, which was in existence before the
coming into force of act 464, was re-established to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on the community
tribunals.
In 2002, act 620, section 6(7) amended act 459 and abolished the community tribunals. That left intact the
district courts as established by act 459 and act 464.
It follows from the foregoing that the district courts replaced and exercised the jurisdiction and functions
of the community tribunals: act 620, section 6(8) and act 464, section 3. The jurisdictions of the district
courts, whether presided over by a career magistrate or a lawyer magistrate, are the same and are set out
in act 620, sections 47, 48,49,5 and 51. All district courts apply the district court rules, 2009 (CI 59) to try
civil cases and the criminal and other offences (procedure) act 1960 (act 30) to try criminal cases.
The district court has three divisions. They are the general division which handles general matters at the
district court, the juvenile court which tried criminal cases involving people aged below eighteen years.
The traditional council*
It has a traditional council whose president is the paramount chief of the area. The judicial committee of
the tradition council has jurisdiction to hear cases involving chiefs below the rank of paramount chiefs.
That committee is made up of five members but it is duly constituted by not less than three of its
members for the determination of disputes. It has no appellate jurisdiction. It tries disputes involving
chiefs below the status of paramount chiefs or the Asantehene. The procedure for the trial of cases is
regulated by the chieftaincy (proceedings and functions) (traditional councils) regulations, 1972(LI 798)
The judicial committees of the regional houses of chiefs have original jurisdiction over disputes involving
paramount chiefs, paramount queen mothers and the Asantehene. Those committees hear appeals from
decisions of judicial committees of traditional councils. The original and appellate jurisdictions of these
committees are exercised by not less than three of its members. Appeals from the decisions of judicial
committees of the regional houses of chiefs go to the judicial committee of the national house of chiefs.
The procedure for trial and hearing of cases at the judicial committees of the regional houses of chiefs are
regulated by the chieftaincy (national and regional houses of chiefs) procedure rules, 1972 (CI 27)
The judicial committee of the national house of chiefs tries causes or matters affecting chiefs who are
paramount chiefs, paramount queen mothers or the Asantehene, including disputes involving paramount
chiefs which cannot be tried by the judicial committees of regional houses operating within the region
where the chiefs are paramount chiefs. It hears appeals from decisions of judicial committees of regional
houses of chiefs. Appeals from decisions of the judicial committee of national house of chiefs go to the
Supreme Court. The procedure for trial and hearing of appeals in the judicial committee of national house
of chiefs is regulated by CI 27.
READING LIST.
1. THE CONSTITUTION, 1992. Ch. 11

2. THE COURTS ACT, 1993 (ACT 459)

3. SAM (No 2) V. ATTORNEY GENERAL (2000) JELR 68212

4. ZAKARIA V. NYIMAKAN [2003-2004]

5. AGYEKUM V. ASAKUM ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION. [1992] 2GLR 635

6. RE AKOTO (NO.2)

7. TSATSU TSIKATA CJ & AG

8. R V. KOJO THOMPSON JELR 81171 (WACA)

9. KING V. EARL OF CREWE [1910] 2 KB 576

10. SOBHUZA V. MILLER [1926] A.C. 518 (P.C)

11. NYALI V. A.G [1956] 1 Q.B

12. GOHOHO V. GUINEA PRESS LTD AND ANOR

13. OSEADEEYO ADDO DANKWAH III, THE INSTITUTION OF CHIEFTANCY IN

GHANA - THE FUTURE.

14. APPIAH V. INKYI (1907) ren 455

15. RAYMOND ATUGUBA, THE TAX CULTURE OF GHANA

16. E.K. QUANSAH, THE GHANA LEGAL SYSTEM. Ch. 6

17. MR. DOMINIC AYINE; HUMAN RIGHTS BEYOND THE PRISON WALLS: A RIGHTS

BASED CRITIQUE OF GHANA’S PRISON SYSTEM.

18. STATE V OTCHERE [1963] 2 G.L.R. 463-531

19. REPUBLIC V DIRECTOR PRISONS; EX PARTE SHACKLEFORD [1981] G.L.R. 554

20. TAKYI V GHASSOUB (GHANA) LTD. (1988) JELR 68034 (SC)

READING LIST.

1.