A legal researcher and academic, Elorm Kwami Gorni, has sued the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice at the Supreme Court, seeking a declaration that the two-month legal vacation observed by the High Courts, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court is unconstitutional.
The action filed on August 7, 2026, is invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court pursuant to Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992, and Rule 45 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I. 16) as amended by C.I. 24, is for the interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution.
The facts are that the Superior Courts of Judicature of Ghana, by long-standing practice and pursuant to their respective Rules of Court, observe an annual legal vacation from August 1 to September 30, each year.
During the legal vacation, the High Court continues to sit on a limited basis through designated vacation courts for specified urgent matters.
But, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, do not sit throughout the entire period and wono sittings are held, and no appeals, constitutional actions, applications, or other proceedings are heard or determined during that period.
Consequently, litigants with pending matters before the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court are compelled to wait until the expiration of the legal vacation before their cases can proceed, regardless of the urgency, importance or nature of the issues involved.
Plaintiff’s Contention
The plaintiff contended that the complete suspension of sittings of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court during the period designated as legal vacation occasions systemic delay in the administration of justice, impedes the timely hearing and determination of pending cases, and unjustifiably restricts litigants’ constitutional rights to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, fair and reasonable administrative treatment, and effective access to the courts, contrary to Articles 19(1), 23, 33, 125 and 296 of the Constitution.
He further stated that the impugned practice disproportionately affects litigants seeking constitutional remedies, enforcement of fundamental human rights, appeals and other urgent judicial reliefs, by depriving them of access to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court for a continuous period of two months, irrespective of the urgency or gravity of their cases.
The plaintiff argued that the practice of legal vacation, insofar as it results in the complete suspension of sittings of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court for a continuous period of approximately two months in every legal year, constitutes an unreasonable, arbitrary and unconstitutional administrative practice which is inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution.
He said that the said practice unjustifiably delays the hearing and determination of appeals, constitutional actions, applications and other proceedings, thereby denying litigants their constitutional right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time guaranteed under Article 19(1) of the Constitution.
He further submitted that the prolonged suspension of judicial sittings impedes access to justice and amounts to administrative action that is unfair, unreasonable and inconsistent with Article 23 of the Constitution.
The plaintiff averred that the blanket suspension of sittings of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court during legal vacation is neither reasonably necessary nor proportionate to any legitimate administrative objective, particularly where less restrictive measures, including the constitution of vacation panels, rotational sittings or other judicial arrangements, are reasonably available to ensure the continuous administration of justice.
He further said that any discretionary power exercised in determining whether any proceedings may be heard during legal vacation is exercised without clear, objective and transparent constitutional standards, thereby offending Article 296 of the Constitution, which requires discretionary powers to be exercised fairly, reasonably and without arbitrariness.
The plaintiff further contended that the effective closure of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court during legal vacation substantially impairs the enforcement of fundamental human rights and freedoms by delaying access to the superior courts for the vindication of constitutional rights, contrary to Articles 33(1) and 33(3) of the Constitution.
He argued that Article 33(3) guarantees every person aggrieved by a determination of the High Court the constitutional right of appeal to the Court of Appeal, with a further right of appeal to the Supreme Court. These rights of appeal, he says, must be practical, effective and capable of timely exercise, and not merely theoretical or illusory.
Consequently, any rule or administrative practice which results in the complete cessation of sittings of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court for a continuous period of two months substantially impairs the effective enjoyment and enforcement of the constitutional right of appeal.
The plaintiff said that Article 125 of the Constitution vests the judicial power of Ghana exclusively in the Judiciary and imposes upon the courts the constitutional duty to administer justice in accordance with the Constitution and the laws of Ghana. The exercise of judicial power, he argues, is a continuing constitutional function which cannot be suspended or interrupted except as expressly authorised by the Constitution.
He contended that neither the Constitution nor any other constitutional provision contemplates a complete suspension of the sittings of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal for a continuous period of two months. While the Rules of Court may regulate the practice and procedure of the courts, they cannot curtail, suspend or substantially impede the exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction vested in those courts.
The plaintiff readily acknowledged that judicial officers are entitled to reasonable periods of leave and rest. However, he contends that the organisation of judicial leave and legal vacation must be undertaken in a manner that does not occasion the complete suspension of the constitutional functions of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, or otherwise impede litigants’ constitutional rights to a fair hearing within a reasonable time and effective access to justice.
He further contended that the Constitution does not contemplate a situation where the apex court of the Republic ceases to sit for a continuous period of two months while litigants with pending appeals, constitutional actions and applications are denied access to the court. Such a practice, he says, is inconsistent with the constitutional role of the Supreme Court as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution and the final arbiter of justice.
Reliefs sought
The Plaintiff in his action is seeking the following declaration and orders;
a) A declaration that the practice of legal vacation as observed by the Superior Courts of Judicature of the Republic of Ghana, in so far as it results in the suspension or substantial restriction of the hearing and determination of cases, thereby occasioning undue delay in the administration of justice and unjustifiably restricting access to the courts, is inconsistent with and in contravention of Article 1(2), 19(1), 23, 125 and 296 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992, and is therefore unconstitutional to the extent of its inconsistency.
b) A declaration that the practice of legal vacation as observed by the Superior Courts of Judicature of the Republic of Ghana, in so far as it results ni the suspension of the hearing and determination of cases by the
Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court for a continuous period of two months, thereby occasioning undue delay ni the administration of justice and restricting litigants’ access ot the Courts, is inconsistent with and in contravention of Articles 1(2), 19(1), 23, 3, 125 and 296 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992, and is therefore unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect ot the extent of the inconsistency.
c) A declaration that Rule 61(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (C.I. 19), and Rule 82 (Vacation) of the Supreme Court Rules, 196 (C.I. 16), in so far as they provide for or permit the suspension ofthe sittings of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court for a continuous period of two months during legal vacation, thereby delaying the hearing and determination of cases and restricting access to justice, are inconsistent with and in contravention of Articles 1(2), 19(1), 23, 33(1), 125(3), 125 and 296 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992, and are accordingly null, void and of no effect to the extent of the inconsistency.
d) An order striking downRule 61(b) ofthe Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (C.I. 19), and Rule 82 (Vacation) ofthe Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I. 16), to the extent that they authorise or permit the suspension of the sittings of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court during the period designated as legal vacation, as being unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect to the extent of their inconsistency with the relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992.
e)A declaration that, upon the true and purposive interpretation of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992, the constitutional guarantee of a fair hearing within a reasonable time imposes a continuing
obligation on the State and the Judiciary to organize and administer the system of justice in a manner that ensures the continuous institutional availability of the Superior Courts forthe timely hearing and determination
of proceedings through constitutionally compliant arrangements, notwithstanding periods of legal vacation.
f) An order directing the Chief Justice to make such administrative and procedural arrangements, including the institution of rotational vacation sittings, as may be necessary to ensure that the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court continue to hear and determine cases throughout the period
designated as legal vacation, ni conformity with the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992.
