Nyindam v High Court (J5/13/2026) [2026] GHASC 45 (28 January 2026)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE SUPREME COURT ACCRA – AD.2026

Coram

PWAMANG JSC (PRESIDING) AMADU JSC KULENDI JSC ASIEDU JSC KWOFIE JSC

Civil Motion

NO: J5/13/2026

28TH JANUARY, 2026

THE REPUBLIC VRS. HIGH COURT

(COMMERCIAL DIVISION) TAMALE. …………… RESPONDENT

EX PARTE:

1. MATHEW NYINDAM …………… APPLICANT

1. DANIEL NSALA WAKPAL …………… 1ST INTERESTED PARTY

2. THE ELECTORALCOMMISSION …………… 2ND INTERESTED PARTY

3. THE CLERK OF PARLIAMENT …………… 3RD INTERESTED PARTY

Majority Opinion

KULENDI JSC:-

A. INTRODUCTION

1. Having regard to the many election petitions that flood our courts after each general election, one cannot help but agree with Niccolo di Bernardo dei Machiavelli in his book titled “The Prince” when he said;

“The desire to acquire power is truly very natural and common; and men who succeed in doing so are always praised, not blamed.” (The Prince, 1532, ch. III)

2. However, in a constitutional democracy such as ours, the pursuit of political power is attained through the ballot box and persons who are aggrieved by the outcome or processes may have solace in the court of law. In other words, elections are the constitutional moment when the sovereignty of the people is not only affirmed in language but performed in practice. They are, in reality, the periodic renewal of the social contract in the Hobbesian, Lockean or Rousseauian sense and because elections are the clearest expression of collective self -government, disputes concerning them are, at their core, disputes about the conditions under which public authority becomes legitimate.

3. That is why the judicial role in electoral disputes is both delicate and indispensable. It is delicate, because courts must not displace the people as the ultimate authors of political authority; and indispensable, because courts must ensure that the peopl e’s choice is expressed through processes the Constitution recognises as lawful.

4. On this account, a judge who is privileged to adjudicate on an election petition must exercise an unwavering fidelity to the law and be deaf to the passions of the heart. The Court’s duty must be to protect the broader constitutional idea that the people’s will, when expressed through elections, is entitled to be counted honestly, transparently, and within law.

5. Our task therefore, is twofold. First, to be faithful to the democratic imperative that electoral outcomes should not be lightly unsettled. Second, to be faithful to the constitutional imperative that no public power, electoral or judicial, is immunised from law. The tension between these imperatives is part of the design of constitutional governance. The Court’s duty is to hold them in principled balance, ensuring that finality does not become injustice, and that correction does not become destabilisation. It is from this perspective that we consider the application before us.

6. This is an application which invokes the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court and seeks to quash the decision of the High Court, Tamale, delivered on 24 November 2025, in Suit No. NR/TL/HC/E13/22/25, entitled Daniel Nsala Wakpal v. Matthew Nyindam & Anor. In that decision, the trial judge invalidated the results of the 2024 parliamentary election for the Kpandai Constituency and ordered a rerun.

7. The Applicant, Mr. Matthew Nyindam, challenges the jurisdiction of the High Court to have entertained the election petition in the first place. The issue before us is therefore narrow and purely jurisdictional: whether the High Court was clothed with

jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition, having regard to the strict timelines that govern parliamentary election petitions.

B. BACKGROUND

8. The said Applicant, Mr. Nyindam, and the 1st Interested Party, Mr. Wakpal, contested in the 7th December, 2024 Kpandai constituency parliamentary elections organized by the Electoral Commission of Ghana , the 2nd interested party , on the ticket of the New Patriotic Party and the National Democratic Congress respectively.

9. Mr. Nyindam states that polls were successfully conducted in all 152 polling stations in the Kpandai constituency and the results declared in the various polling stations. After collation, Mr. Nyindam was declared as winner of the Parliamentary Election and the election results were published in the Gazette No. 234 dated 24th December, 2024. The gazette notification of the parliamentary election results has been attached to Mr. Nyindam’s affidavit as “Exhibit MN”.

10. On 25th January, 2025, Mr. Wakpal filed an election petition at the High Court, Tamale disputing the outcome of the parliamentary elections and sought the following reliefs from the Court.

a. A declaration that the Parliamentary Election held in the Kpandai Constituency on 7th December, 2024 was void by virtue of the irregularities and inconsistencies contained in FORM 8A (Regulation 32(7) and 39(2) Statement of Polls for the Office of Member of Parliament (Pink Sheet) for Forty-one (41) polling stations out of a total of One hundred and fifty -two (152) polling stations in the Kpandai Constituency.

b. A declaration that the irregularities and inconsistencies contained in FORM 8A (Regulation 32(7) and 39(2) Statement of Polls for the Office of Member of Parliament (Pink Sheet) for Forty -one (41) polling stations out of a total of One hundred and fifty -two (152) polling stations in the Kpandai Constituency have so extensively prevailed and have reasonably affected the results of the election held in the Kpandai Constituency on 7th December, 2024.

c. A declaration that the non -compliance with Regulations 39 of the Public Elections Regulations, 2020 (C.I. 127) affected the parliamentary election results of Forty-one (41) polling stations out of a total of One hundred and fifty-two (152) polling stations in the Kpandai Constituency held in the Kpandai Constituency on 7th December, 2024.

d. A declaration that the non -compliance with Regulations 43 of the Public Elections Regulations, 2020 (C.I. 127) affected the entire results of the parliamentary election held in the Kpandai Constituency on 7th December, 2024, thereby rendering the said results as void.

e. An order setting aside the declaration of the parliamentary election results affecting the Forty -one (41) polling stations out of a total of One hundred and fifty-two (152) polling stations in the Kpandai Constituency by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents was given on the 7th of December, 2024.

f. An order directed at the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to conduct a rerun of the parliamentary elections in the affected Forty-one (41) polling stations out of a total of One hundred and fifty -two (152) polling stations in the Kpandai Constituency on a date determined by the court.

OR In the Alternative,

a. an order directed at the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to re -collate the results in the affected Forty-one (41) polling stations on a date determined by the court.

b. An order of interlocutory injunction directed at 4th Respondent restraining the 4th Respondent from swearing in the 1st Respondent as Member of Parliament of the Kpandai Constituency on the 5th of January 2025.

c. An order setting aside the parliamentary elections results of the Kpandai Constituency for non-compliance with Regulation 43 of the Public Elections Regulations, 2020 (C.I. 127).

d. An order directed at the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to conduct a rerun of the entire parliamentary elections in the Kpandai Constituency on account of the non-compliance with Regulation 43 of the Public Elections Regulations, 2020 (C.I. 127) which rendered the entire results of the parliamentary elections in the Kpandai Constituency void.

OR In the Alternative,

a. An order directed at the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to re -collate the results in the Kpandai Constituency in compliance with Regulation 43 of the Public Elections Regulations, 2020 (C.1. 127).

b. An order of interlocutory injunction restraining and preventing the 1st Respondent from holding himself out as Member of Parliament elect for the Kpandai Constituency until the final determination of this suit.

c. An order of interlocutory injunction restraining and preventing the 1st Respondent from having access to the Chamber of Parliament until the final determination of this suit.

d. An order of Perpetual Injunction restraining and preventing 1st Respondent from having access to the Chamber of Parliament as Member of Parliament elect for the Kpandai Constituency.

e. Any other order(s) that this Honorable Court may deem fit to make.

11. In November, 2025, the High Court, Tamale upheld the election petition and on the basis of various stated infractions, ordered a rerun of the parliamentary election for the Kpandai Constituency.

12. Mr. Nyindam, in the application before us, raises a jurisdictional objection, contending that the petition was filed outside the twenty -one (21) day period prescribed by law following the gazetting of the results. On that footing, he argues that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition and that its judgment was a nullity. Accordingly, Mr. Nyindam invokes the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court and prays for an order of certiorari to quash the judgment of the High Court delivered on 24 November, 2025.

CASE OF THE 1ST INTERESTED PARTY (MR. WAKPAL)

13. Mr. Wakpal opposes the application before this Court and in an affidavit running into eighty -four (84) paragraphs, he alleges, among other matters, that the Applicant engaged in fraud. He states that on 23rd December, 2024 he filed an election petition, Suit No. NR/TL/HC/E13/15/25, challenging the declaration of Mr. Nyindam as the Member of Parliament –elect for the Kpandai Constituency. He further deposes that he paid the prescribed security for costs on 3rd January, 2025 in compliance with the statutory requirements.

14. According to Mr. Wakpal, upon being served, Mr. Nyindam entered a conditional appearance and filed a motion on notice seeking to dismiss the election petition on the ground that it had been filed prematurely. In that motion, Mr. Nyindam contended that the results of the parliamentary election conducted in the Kpandai Constituency on 7th December, 2024 were gazetted on 6th January, 2025. A copy of that alleged Gazette notice was exhibited to the motion as “Exhibit JS 3.”

15. The Mr. Wakpal proceeds to state that. “The High Court, Kumasi and I believed and relied on the Applicant’s representation… about the said gazette of 6th January 2024.”

16. In fact, in paragraph 32(i) of the Affidavit in opposition, Mr. Wakpal deposes as follows. “That in reliance o n(sic) the depositions in the Applicant's Supplementary Affidavit that the 2nd Interested Party published the Election results in the Gazette on 6th January, 2025, I filed a Notice of Discontinuance and wholly discontinued the 23rd of December, 2024 Petition with suit number NR/TL/HC/E13/15/25 and caused a fresh Election Petition with suit number NR/TL/HC/E13/22/25 to be filed on the 25th of January, 2025, since the Applicant had not filed an Answer to the Petition.”

37. I am advised by Counsel and verily believe same to be true that the Applicant's conduct is fraudulent because he induced me to act to my detriment to secure any unfair advantage before this Honourable Court by bringing an application for Judicial Revie w in the nature of Certiorari for an order of court quashing the judgment of the High Court, Commercial Division, Tamale, dated 24th November, 2025, as well as the proceedings and processes leading to the said judgment.

42. That the Applicant acquiesced to whatever alleged want of jurisdiction attended the Tamale High Court's judgment by his own conduct of having knowledge of a December, 2024 gazette, and yet accepting, consenting to, participating and relying on all proceedings of the Election Petition with suit number NR/TL/HC/E13/22/25 of the trial High Court, Commercial Division, Tamale, leading to judgment. This Honourable Court ought to shut its doors of discretionary remedy of Certiorari to the Applicant as he cannot be allowed to file into court, rely on and seek to benefit from the gazette dated 24th December, 2024, in a Certiorari Application before this Honourable Court.”

17. In sum, Mr. Wakpal contends that Mr. Nyindam cannot be allowed to take inconsistent positions in the same matter. Put differently, he cannot be permitted to “blow hot and cold” or, in the language of the law, to approbate and reprobate.

18. He further contends that Mr. Nyindam has already benefited from the High Court (Tamale)’s award of costs in the sum of Seven Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHS 7,000), made following the discontinuance of the earlier election petition in Suit No. NR/TL/HC/E13/15/25.

C. GROUNDS FOR THE APPLICATION

19. Mr. Nyindam anchors the present application on the following grounds;

I. The learned High Court Judge committed a jurisdictional error when he wrongfully assumed jurisdiction to hear and determine the Parliamentary Election Petition filed by the 1st Interested Party on the 25th day of January 2025 in respect of the Parliamentary Election held at the Kpandai Constituency on 7th December, 2024 after the expiration of statutory twenty -one (21) days from the date of the publication in the Gazette of the election results to which the petition relates.

II. The trial Judge committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record when he proceeded to hear and give Judgment on the Petition filed by the 1st Interested Party on the 25th day of January 2025 contrary to and in breach of section 18 of the Repre sentation of The People Law, 1992, P.N.D.C.L. 284 thereby rendering his Judgment dated 24th November, 2025 void and a nullity.

D. RELIEFS SOUGHT:

20. On the basis of the said grounds, Mr. Nyindam seeks the following reliefs: I. A declaration that the Parliamentary Election Petition filed by the 1st Interested Party on 25th January, 2025, in respect of the Parliamentary Election held at the Kpandai Constituency on 7th December, 2024, thirty -two (32) days after the publication of the gazette notification of the Results to which the Petition related was invalid and same could not have properly invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court, Commercial Division, Tamale, and that, any processes, proceedings and judgement or Order founded on same is void and of no effect.

II. An Order of Certiorari by this Honourable Court quashing the Judgement of His Lordship Justice Emmanuel Bart -Plange Brew sitting at the High Court,

Commercial Division, Tamale, dated 24th November, 2025, delivered pursuant to the said invalid Petition as well as any process and proceedings founded on the said invalid Petition.

III. Any other Order(s) as the Court deem fit.

E. EVALUATION:

21. Our supervisory jurisdiction has, in recent times, become one of the most frequently invoked jurisdictions of this Court. It is therefore not surprising that the authorities on its nature and scope are legion. This Court, speaking through Amadu Tanko JSC, in a judgment dated 22nd June, 2023, in Suit No. J5/54/2023, Republic v. High Court, Cape Coast; Ex parte Asiedu, stated as follows: “In the hierarchy of courts, only two courts, the Supreme Court and the High Court are vested with the jurisdiction to exercise supervisory powers over courts below them or adjudicating bodies. The supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is provided under Article 132 of the 1992 Constitution…”

22. The effect of this statement is that the supervisory jurisdiction is an exceptional authority, vested in this Court to safeguard the integrity of our justice delivery system and to preserve the architecture of our democracy it is therefore not an ordinary jurisdiction and is exercised sparingly, and only in well -defined circumstances, particularly where the decision of the High Court or the Court of Appeal is shown to have been made without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, in palpable error of law, or in breach of the rules of natural justice. This position has been reiterated in a long line of decisions and does not require any extended elaboration here. By way of illustration, in a ruling of this Court dated 14th October, 2020, in Civil Motion No. J5/62/2020, entitled Republic v. High Court (Land Division), Accra; Ex parte Kennedy Ohene Agyapong (Susan Bandoh, Interested Party) , which I had the

privilege of authoring on behalf of the Court, we reiterated the scope of our supervisory jurisdiction in the following terms: “The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is a great residual jurisdiction that allows this Court to streamline the activities of the lower courts. Our control is limited to three main areas: against want or excess of jurisdiction; against patent errors of law on the face of the record; and against breaches or denial of natural justice.”

23. Accordingly, our function, in proceedings such as this, is not to substitute our view for that of the court below, or to re -open contested factual issues, or to entertain dissatisfaction that properly belongs to the appellate structure. Rather, our task i s more fundamental: to determine whether the proceedings under challenge were undertaken without lawful authority, that is to say, whether the court below acted without the requisite jurisdiction.