At the High Court, Ho, on 7th February 2024, Justice Owoahene Acheampong refused to allow the lawyer for the Petitioners to withdraw his application for judgment on admissions which had been earlier argued before the belated application by the 2nd Respondent to the Petitioner, Hon. Peter Amewu, to file an answer to the Election Petition out of time.
Justice Acheampong indicated that he was not “ashamed to state that I know of no law or rule that allows me to allow an applicant to withdraw an application that has been moved ….”.
He did not discuss the cases Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata, had cited before the court but stated that according to Counsel, the cases were by way of analogy.
Though dismissing the application, the judge did not grant costs against the Petitioners though Counsel for Hon. Amewu, Mr. Kofitse, pressed the court to do so.
In response to the application for costs to be awarded, Mr. Philip Jimanor, who held the brief of Mr. Tsikata pointed out that it was the late entry of Hon. Amewu that had led to the application to withdraw the application for judgment on admissions to save time in the suit.
After he dismissed the application to withdraw the application for judgment on admissions, Justice Acheampong then went on to deliver a ruling dismissing as unmeritorious the application made on behalf of the Petitioners for judgment on admissions.
According to him, though the petitioners did not seek declaratory reliefs in their petition, but rather sought to have the election set aside and re-run, their pleadings show that they were seeking a declaration that the election and its results were null and void.
He emphasized that it is only the High Court that can declare an election of a Parliamentary candidate as null and void per section 6 of PNDCL 284 and therefore Petitioners should not have stated in paragraphs 32 and 33 of their petition that the election of 2nd Respondent is null and void.
He stated that he cannot set aside an election and its results without having first declared the same as null and void.
The petition must necessarily involve a declaration of whether the election was null and void before the reliefs sought by the petitioners could be granted.
He further stated that declaratory reliefs cannot be obtained by applications but after trial.
Accordingly, the judge held the view that evidence would need to be taken before granting these reliefs.
He further stated that the rule under which the application was brought, (Order 23 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules) does not provide for judgment on admissions but rather for orders to be made by the judge on the admissions.
Justice Acheampong, therefore, indicated that “assuming the 1st Respondent made admissions of facts, that will become a legally triable matter”.
Justice Acheampong said he would therefore make orders for the further conduct of the case as part of his ruling on the application for directions.
The lawyer for Hon. Amewu again pressed the court for costs but this was opposed by a lawyer for the Petitioners and the judge refused to award costs against the Petitioners.
According to Justice Acheampong, the application for directions filed by the Counsel for the Petitioners after filing replies to the Answers filed by the Respondents was premature.
Justice Acheampong nonetheless adopted the application for Directions filed by Counsel for Petitioners on 19th January 2024 as regularly filed and made an order granting the Respondents twenty-one days to file any issues additional to the issues that had been filed by Counsel for Petitioners in the application for directions.
He stated that on the next adjourned date he would decide on whether the court would be proceeding by way of a trial or by hearing legal argument.
The court adjourned to March 15, 2024, to set down issues in the application for directions.