A Thread.

Quote the case that relates to the facts as stated.

( Constitutional Law, legal system., Criminal Law, Contract Law, Commercial Law)

1. The plaintiff contends that non-bailable offences as outlined under Act 29 is in violation of Art 19 and Art 15 of the 1992 constitution.

2. The defendant promised to marry the plaintiff some years back. He was catered for by the plaintiff but when he became gainfully employed , he abandoned the plaintiff. The plaintiff then sued for breach of promise to marry.

3. Plaintiff contends that property acquired by an occupant of a stool as a chief is stool property & not self acquired property.
Was held in favor of the defendant, stating that property acquired by one's own capital for personal purposes is self-acquired property.

4. The plaintiff in this case contends that subject to Art 146 , a prima facie case must be established against a chief justice in matters of removal & that the establishment of a committee to investigate into the matter without establishing a prima facie case is unconstitutional

5. The plaintiff invoked the original jurisdiction of this court for PNDC 326 to be declared void on grounds that it violated Art 140 since it prohibited the bringing of any claim against any act done pursuant to PNDC 326. The court gave judgement for the plaintiff.

6. The plaintiff brought this action for the court to declare that the defendant is ineligible to run as a presidential candidate since he had been convicted of high treason for attempting to overthrow the PNDC government

7. This application was brought by a political party challenging the constitutional validity of the action of the sitting government to declare 31st december as a public holiday and to authorise Money for a celebration to be held in that regard.

8. The applicant challenges the validity of the procedural demand that prior consent of the police service must be sort & granted before one can engage in public demonstration. Here the court held that this was in violation of the freedom of association & assembly under Art 21

9. The accused was charged for wilfully causing financial loss to the state. He then sort leave & applied to this court contending that since the said offence was not defined under law it was in violation of Article 19(11) and to that extent the offence is non-existent under law

10. The plaintiff together with others were banned and their results cancelled for alleged malpractices during the WASSCE exams. They applied to this court stating that the said decision was in violation of Art 23 and principles of natural justice.

The court upheld their plea

11. Applicant was b4 this court twice. First, judgment was held in his favor on grounds that decree made which led to his arrest was invalid. On the second time, his application was not upheld. The court noted that the decree was published in a Gazette & numbered thus, was valid

12. Plaintiffs brought this action against managers of a stadia. They contended that they suffered nervous shock from injury caused to their relatives through the collapse of a wall in the stadium. The said injuries were viewed on television which was 7hours after the incident.

13. A daughter added poison a drink being drank by the mother. The mother died of heart failure and the medical report suggested that the poison was not enough to kill her. She was convicted for attempted murder.

14. The accused persons in this case were alleged to have plotted an overthrow of the president. Some pleaded that they did not act pursuant to the agreement to overthrow the government and some changed their mind. The court convicted some of the accused persons for conspiracy

15. The plaintiffs in this case argued that the power of the chief justice to empanel, is a violation of the principle of natural justice if the action concerns the chief justice in his official capacity.
Here the court rejected this argument.

16. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that two judges have a material interest in the matter and to that extent cannot be made to sit on the case. Here they contended that there is a likelihood of bias on the part of the two judges. But the court rejected this argument.

17. It is a peculiar trait of customary marriage that the agreement is between two families and not the two individuals intending to marriage. A lack of consent by the girls family makes the marriage invalid..

This was decided in the case ......

18. The plaintiff's passport was revoked. He brought this application to this court that the revocation as made by the minister was in violation of Art 21 since as a citizen he had the right to enter & exit Ghana anytime. The court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction

19. The plaintiff sought a declaration against the defendant that he cannot become a president since he is not a citizen of this country by birth subject to Art 62. The court ruled against the applicant since he was unable to discharge the burden of proof.

20. 8 persons were arrested and detained pursuant to the PDA. A harbeas corpus application was brought on their behalf but this was dismissed by the court. The court noted that the 1960 constitution did not have justiciable human right provisions.

21.The plaintiff in this matter challenges the validity of the citizenship Act 2000. He contends that it violates Art 17 since it treats dual citizens differently from other citizens. This argument was rejected by the court.

22. The plaintiff in this case contends that subject to Art 60(10) & (11), a president is not unable to perform its function if it is outside the jurisdiction. Thus, the swearing in of the speaker amounts to a violation of the constitution. This was rejected by the court

23. How many exclusive original jurisdiction does supreme court have? Cite cases where necessary