The Supreme Court has indefinitely adjourned the suit filed by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) challenging a High Court decision on the collation of parliamentary election results in four constituencies.
The constituencies in question are Tema Central, Okaikwei Central, Techiman South, and Ablekuma North.
When the case was called in court today, January 23, 2025, it emerged that the NDC had failed to serve the New Patriotic Party (NPP) candidates, who are parties to the case.
The issue of non-service was raised by NPP Director of Legal Affairs and lawyer in the case, Gary Nimako.
Delivering the ruling, Justice Pwamang explained that the application could not proceed due to the failure to serve notice to the interested parties. The court held that proper service must be completed before the matter could be heard.
Counsel for the applicants, Gideon Abotsi, proposed that service be effected through the interested parties’ lawyer, who had already announced himself as their counsel of record. However, Justice Pwamang disagreed, stating that service could not be made on the lawyer, leaving the matter unresolved and resulting in the indefinite adjournment of the case.
The panel hearing the case included Justices Pwamang, Mensah-Bonsu, Gaewu, Adjei-Frimpong, and Kwofie.
The apex court, therefore, adjourned the case sine die (indefinitely) to allow the applicants to serve the respondents properly.
Earlier, the High Court, presided over by Justice Forson Baah Agyapong on Saturday, January 4, 2025, granted a mandamus application filed by the New Patriotic Party (NPP).
The ruling instructed the Electoral Commission (EC) to complete the collation of results for Okaikwei Central, Tema Central, Techiman South, and Ablekuma North constituencies and announce the winners.
In compliance with the ruling, the EC has since re-collated the results for three constituencies—Okaikwei Central, Tema Central, and Techiman South—leaving Ablekuma North outstanding.
The NDC, however, has petitioned the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the High Court’s decision.
ALSO READ: