READING TO UNDERSTAND GHANAIAN JUDGMENTS
A detailed essay with Ghanaian Supreme Court authorities, case citations and practical methods of analysis
Introduction
The ability to read and understand judicial decisions is an essential skill for every law student, professional law student, practising lawyer and legal researcher in Ghana. Judicial decisions are not merely accounts of disputes between individuals or institutions. They explain how courts interpret the Constitution, apply legislation, develop legal principles and resolve competing claims to rights and obligations.
A person who reads judgments only to memorise the facts and final orders may fail to understand the legal principles for which the cases are important. Proper reading requires the reader to identify the material facts, issues for determination, applicable rules of law, judicial reasoning, ratio decidendi and final orders.
This skill is particularly important in Ghana because the legal system recognises judicial precedent. The legal significance of a judgment depends not only on what the court decided but also on the court that delivered the decision, the issue determined and the legal principle necessary to resolve that issue.
Three leading Ghanaian constitutional cases provide useful starting points:
- Tuffour v Attorney-General 1980 GLR 637–667, concerning constitutional interpretation and the nature of a written Constitution.
- New Patriotic Party v Attorney-General 1993–94 2 GLR 35–192, commonly known as the 31st December case, concerning constitutional supremacy and the constitutional validity of celebrating 31 December as a public holiday.
- J.H. Mensah v Attorney-General 1997–98 1 GLR 227–281, concerning the requirement for parliamentary approval of ministers under the 1992 Constitution.
These cases illustrate how to move beyond the facts of a dispute to understand the constitutional provisions, judicial reasoning and legal principles involved.
1. Understanding the structure of a Ghanaian judgment
A judgment should be read as a connected legal argument. Its different parts perform different functions, and understanding those functions helps the reader identify the principle that the court established.
1.1 Case name and citation
The case name identifies the parties, while the citation identifies the reported decision or another recognised reference to it.For example, Tuffour v Attorney-General 1980 GLR 637–667 is a reported Ghanaian constitutional case. The citation directs the reader to the relevant volume and pages of the Ghana Law Reports.
A proper case citation should be recorded accurately. Where possible, verify the citation against the judgment itself, an authoritative law report or a reliable legal database.
When examining a citation, determine:
- The identity of the parties.
- The year of the decision.
- The law report in which it appears.
- The page or case number.
- The court that delivered the judgment.
- Whether the decision was subsequently distinguished, overruled or affected by constitutional or statutory changes.
A case may be well known but still be cited incorrectly. Accuracy matters because a lawyer must be able to locate and verify the authority relied upon.
1.2 The court that delivered the judgment
The court is important because it determines the precedential weight of the decision.
Article 126 of the 1992 Constitution identifies the superior courts of judicature, while Articles 129 and 136 address the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal respectively.
A Supreme Court decision on a legal question will ordinarily bind lower courts, subject to the applicable constitutional rules. The Supreme Court’s treatment of its own previous decisions is governed by Article 129(3).
A Court of Appeal decision is generally binding on lower courts, subject to applicable rules and the constitutional hierarchy. A High Court decision may be persuasive but does not ordinarily bind another High Court in the same way that a Supreme Court precedent binds lower courts.
Consequently, a reader should never rely on a judgment without identifying the court that delivered it.
1.3 The material facts
Material facts are those facts that affect the application of the law or the determination of the dispute.
For example, in J.H. Mensah v Attorney-General, the dispute arose from the government’s position that certain ministers retained from the previous parliamentary term did not need fresh approval from the newly elected Parliament. The plaintiff challenged that position under the 1992 Constitution.
The material facts are not simply that a new Parliament had been inaugurated or that ministers were retained. Their legal significance lay in the relationship between those events and the constitutional requirement for parliamentary approval.
This illustrates an important principle: facts become legally significant because of their relationship to a rule of law.
When reading a judgment, separate material facts from background information. This will help you identify which facts the court considered decisive.
1.4 The issues for determination
An issue for determination is the legal question the court must answer to resolve the dispute.
In J.H. Mensah v Attorney-General, the central constitutional question concerned whether ministers retained from the previous term could lawfully act without obtaining the approval of the newly elected Parliament. The case required the Supreme Court to interpret the relevant constitutional provisions governing ministerial appointments.
A reader should formulate issues as precise legal questions.
For instance:
- Whether the Constitution requires fresh parliamentary approval for ministers retained after a new Parliament is inaugurated.
- Whether a statutory provision is inconsistent with the Constitution.
- Whether a party has established a legal right to the remedy claimed.
Do not confuse an issue with a party’s requested remedy. An injunction, declaration or order for damages is a remedy; whether the legal conditions for granting it have been satisfied is the issue.
1.5 The arguments of counsel
The parties’ submissions explain the competing positions advanced before the court.
One party may argue for a broad interpretation of a constitutional provision, while the other may argue for a narrower interpretation. The court must evaluate those arguments against the constitutional text, relevant legal principles and applicable precedents.
When reading counsel’s submissions, distinguish carefully between an argument made by a party and a proposition adopted by the court. The fact that a judgment records a submission does not mean the court accepted it.
1.6 The court’s reasoning
The reasoning is the explanation of why the court reached its conclusion. It is often the most important part of a judgment for legal study.
The reader should identify:
- The legal rule adopted by the court.
- The constitutional or statutory provisions considered.
- The authorities relied upon.
- The competing arguments considered.
- The reasons for accepting or rejecting those arguments.
- The connection between the rule, the facts and the final decision.
For example, Tuffour v Attorney-General is significant for its approach to constitutional interpretation. The judgment is associated with the principle that a written Constitution should be interpreted broadly and liberally, with attention to its character as a living instrument and to the constitutional structure as a whole.
A student who merely memorises that Tuffour concerns constitutional interpretation has acquired only a fragment of the case. A stronger student understands why the approach to interpretation matters and how it guides the reading of constitutional provisions.
1.7 The final orders
The final orders state what the court formally decided or directed.
Examples include dismissing an action, allowing an appeal, setting aside a lower court’s decision, granting a declaration or remitting a matter for further proceedings.
The orders must be read alongside the reasoning. An appeal may be allowed on one ground but dismissed on another, and a court may grant only part of the reliefs sought.
Never infer the precise outcome from a summary alone when the formal orders are available.
2. Reading Tuffour v Attorney-General 1980 GLR 637–667
Subject: Constitutional interpretation and the nature of a written Constitution
Facts
The case arose under the 1979 Constitution. The plaintiff, Tuffour, sought declarations concerning the constitutional status of Justice Fred Kwasi Apaloo following the commencement of the Third Republican Constitution. The dispute concerned whether Justice Apaloo was deemed to have become Chief Justice under the transitional constitutional arrangements and whether the subsequent process of nomination, parliamentary consideration and rejection of his appointment was constitutionally valid.
Issue
How should a written Constitution be interpreted, particularly where constitutional provisions must be understood in the context of the Constitution as a whole and its transitional arrangements?
Rule
The judgment is a leading Ghanaian authority for a broad and purposive approach to constitutional interpretation. It emphasises that the Constitution should not be approached as an ordinary statute divorced from its structure, principles and historical context.
The Constitution must be read as a coherent instrument. Its provisions should be interpreted in a manner that gives effect to their meaning and purpose rather than by isolating words from their constitutional setting.
Application
When reading Tuffour, the student should examine the constitutional provisions governing the status of the Chief Justice and the relevant transitional arrangements. The important analytical task is to understand how the court approached the Constitution as a whole rather than treating the disputed provision as an isolated sentence.
The case also illustrates the importance of identifying the legal principle that explains the decision. A student should not simply write that the case concerns the appointment of a Chief Justice. The student must explain why the case is important to constitutional interpretation and how its interpretative approach may assist a court faced with ambiguity in another constitutional provision.
For example, where a constitutional provision admits of competing interpretations, Tuffour may be relevant to the argument that the court should consider the constitutional text in its broader structural and purposive context.
However, the case should not be used to suggest that courts may disregard clear constitutional language merely because another interpretation appears more desirable.
Conclusion
Tuffour v Attorney-General is important because it demonstrates how constitutional interpretation requires attention to the Constitution’s structure, purpose and character as a fundamental legal instrument.
What a student should extract: The case’s central significance is its approach to interpreting a written Constitution, not merely the historical dispute concerning Justice Apaloo.
3. Reading New Patriotic Party v Attorney-General 1993–94 2 GLR 35–192
Subject: Constitutional supremacy, constitutional consistency and the enforcement of the 1992 Constitution
Facts
The New Patriotic Party challenged the proposed public celebration of 31 December as a statutory public holiday commemorating the overthrow of Ghana’s constitutionally established government in 1981. The party argued that the proposed celebration and the use of public funds for it were inconsistent with provisions of the 1992 Constitution, including provisions concerning the constitutional order and the protection of constitutional government.
Issue
Whether the proposed celebration and its financing from public funds were inconsistent with the 1992 Constitution.
Rule
Article 1(2) of the 1992 Constitution establishes constitutional supremacy. It provides, in substance, that the Constitution is the supreme law of Ghana and that any other law inconsistent with it is void to the extent of the inconsistency.
Article 2 also provides a mechanism for proceedings challenging acts or omissions alleged to be inconsistent with the Constitution.
The case illustrates that constitutional questions must be determined by examining the relevant constitutional provisions, their relationship to one another and the legal effect of the conduct challenged.
Application
A student reading the case should identify the specific constitutional provisions relied upon by the plaintiff and examine how the Supreme Court analysed them.
The court was not simply deciding whether a public holiday was politically desirable. It was determining whether the proposed conduct could lawfully stand in light of the Constitution.
The reader should distinguish the parties’ arguments from the court’s reasoning and identify which constitutional principles were necessary to the court’s conclusions.
The case also demonstrates the importance of reading the constitutional provisions together. A constitutional challenge may involve several related provisions, and the court must determine how those provisions operate within the constitutional framework.
When applying the case to another dispute, the student should ask whether the new dispute raises a comparable question of constitutional inconsistency. The fact that both disputes involve government action does not automatically make the same legal principle decisive in both cases.
Conclusion
The 31st December case is a significant example of constitutional litigation in Ghana and the enforcement of the Constitution against alleged unconstitutional governmental conduct. It teaches students to identify the precise constitutional provisions in issue and follow the court’s reasoning rather than rely solely on the case’s political background.
What a student should extract: The case is relevant to constitutional supremacy and constitutional enforcement, but any proposition attributed to the Supreme Court must be connected to the actual reasoning and holding in the judgment.
4. Reading J.H. Mensah v Attorney-General 1997–98 1 GLR 227–281
Subject: Constitutional interpretation and parliamentary approval of ministers
Facts
Following the inauguration of a new Parliament in 1997, the government announced that certain ministers and deputy ministers from the preceding parliamentary term would be retained without being presented again for parliamentary approval. The plaintiff, J.H. Mensah, challenged the position and sought declarations concerning the constitutional requirement for prior parliamentary approval of ministerial appointments.
Issue
Whether ministers retained from the preceding term could lawfully continue to act as ministers without obtaining the approval required by the newly elected Parliament under the 1992 Constitution.
Rule
Article 78(1) of the 1992 Constitution provides for the appointment of ministers by the President, subject to the approval of Parliament, as prescribed by the Constitution.
The precise legal effect of the provision must be determined from its wording, constitutional context and the court’s interpretation.
When reading this case, students should examine how the Supreme Court interpreted the requirement for parliamentary approval and how it addressed the argument that ministers previously approved by Parliament could continue in office without fresh approval.
Application
The important point is to identify the relationship between the constitutional requirement and the change in parliamentary term.
The government’s position treated previous approval as sufficient for the retained ministers. The plaintiff challenged that position by relying on the constitutional requirement for parliamentary approval.
The reader should examine the court’s reasoning to determine why the constitutional requirement applied to the circumstances before it. The case demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between an administrative practice adopted by the executive and the legal requirements imposed by the Constitution.
It also illustrates how constitutional interpretation can affect the operation of government institutions. The question was not merely whether the ministers had previously been approved, but whether that earlier approval satisfied the constitutional requirement in the new circumstances.
Conclusion
J.H. Mensah v Attorney-General is an important authority for studying the constitutional requirements governing ministerial appointments and parliamentary approval.
What a student should extract: Identify the constitutional provision, the precise question concerning prior approval, the court’s interpretation and the resulting legal principle. Do not reduce the case to the general statement that Parliament has a role in appointing ministers.
5. Understanding the ratio decidendi and obiter dicta
A proper reading of judgments requires distinguishing the ratio decidendi from obiter dicta.
Ratio decidendi
The ratio decidendi is the legal principle necessary to resolve the issue before the court, considered in the context of the material facts.
For example, when studying J.H. Mensah v Attorney-General, the reader should identify the principle the Supreme Court applied in resolving the dispute concerning parliamentary approval. The ratio must be extracted from the court’s actual reasoning, not merely from the subject heading of the case.
Obiter dicta
Obiter dicta are observations that are not necessary to determine the issue before the court. They may provide useful guidance, but they are distinguished from the ratio that supports the decision.
A judge may discuss the possible application of a legal principle to circumstances not presented by the facts. If that discussion was unnecessary to the decision, it may be obiter.
How to identify the ratio
Ask four questions:
- What legal issue did the court decide?
- What rule did the court apply to that issue?
- Why was that rule necessary to reach the result?
- Would the outcome have been different if the rule had not been applied?
The fourth question is a useful analytical aid, although it should not be treated as a mechanical test that settles every difficult case.
Where a judgment contains several opinions, compare the reasoning of the judges and identify the legal proposition supported by the decision. A dissenting opinion is not the holding of the majority simply because it contains persuasive reasoning.
6. Understanding statutory and constitutional interpretation through judgments
Ghanaian judgments frequently require the court to interpret statutory or constitutional language.
The reader should identify the interpretative method adopted and the reasons for adopting it.
6.1 Ordinary meaning
The court considers the ordinary meaning of the words used in the provision.
Ask whether the language is clear and whether the proposed interpretation fits the words in their statutory or constitutional context.
6.2 Contextual interpretation
A provision must be read in the context of the wider enactment or Constitution. The court may examine related provisions, definitions, exceptions, schedules and transitional arrangements.
This is especially important where interpreting one provision in isolation would produce a result inconsistent with another provision.
6.3 Purposive interpretation
The court considers the objective the legislation or constitutional provision seeks to achieve, while remaining faithful to the text.
The interpretative approach associated with Tuffour v Attorney-General is particularly useful when studying constitutional provisions that require a broad understanding of the constitutional instrument as a whole.
6.4 Precedent and the development of legal principles
A court may rely on an earlier judgment to interpret a provision, distinguish an earlier case on its facts or explain why a previous principle applies differently.
When reading such reasoning, ask:
- What proposition was taken from the earlier case?
- Was the earlier decision binding or persuasive?
- Did the court follow, distinguish or depart from it?
- Was the earlier case decided under the same constitutional or statutory framework?
A decision interpreting an earlier Constitution may remain influential, but its application to the 1992 Constitution must be assessed carefully.
7. The doctrine of precedent and the authority of Ghanaian judgments
The doctrine of precedent, commonly called stare decisis, promotes consistency, predictability and legal certainty.
The reader must distinguish between the authority of a court and the precedential force of a particular proposition.
A Supreme Court decision is not a licence to treat every sentence in the judgment as binding law. The relevant principle must be identified, and its role in the decision must be understood.
Similarly, a judgment from a foreign jurisdiction may be persuasive without being binding in Ghana.
When relying on a case, verify:
- The court that delivered it.
- The legal issue decided.
- The ratio decidendi.
- Whether the case has been overruled or distinguished.
- Whether subsequent legislation or constitutional amendments affect the principle.
- Whether the principle applies to the facts of the new dispute.
This is how lawyers avoid citing cases merely because their names appear in textbooks or lecture notes.
8. A practical method for reading judgments for examinations
For law students, the aim is not to memorise every paragraph. The aim is to extract and apply the legal principles accurately.
Use the following process for each judgment.
Step 1: Read the case name and citation. Identify the court and the subject of the dispute.
Step 2: Read the facts. Write a short summary of the material facts in your own words.
Step 3: Identify the issue. State the legal question in one sentence.
Step 4: Identify the applicable law. Record the relevant constitutional provisions, statutory sections and earlier cases.
Step 5: Study the reasoning. Explain why the court accepted or rejected the parties’ arguments.
Step 6: Extract the ratio. State the legal principle necessary to resolve the issue.
Step 7: Identify the final orders. Record the outcome accurately.
Step 8: Consider application. Explain how the principle could apply to a new factual problem.
A useful examination technique is to write a short paragraph explaining why the case matters to the topic being studied. For example, when studying constitutional interpretation, explain the relevance of Tuffour. When studying constitutional supremacy, explain the relevance of New Patriotic Party v Attorney-General (the 31st December case). When studying the constitutional requirement for parliamentary approval of ministers, explain the relevance of J.H. Mensah v Attorney-General.
9. A model case brief
The following is a simplified study brief showing how to organise your notes on Tuffour v Attorney-General.
| Heading | Case note |
| Case | Tuffour v Attorney-General |
| Citation | [1980] GLR 637–667 |
| Court | Supreme Court, sitting under the constitutional arrangements of the Third Republic |
| Subject | Constitutional interpretation and the status of the Chief Justice under transitional provisions |
| Material facts | The dispute concerned Justice Apaloo’s constitutional status following the commencement of the 1979 Constitution and the subsequent appointment process. |
| Issue | How the relevant constitutional provisions and transitional arrangements should be interpreted. |
| Legal principle | A written Constitution should be interpreted in the context of its structure, purpose and character as a fundamental legal instrument. |
| Significance | A leading authority on constitutional interpretation in Ghana. |
| What to verify | The precise holding, relevant passages, subsequent treatment and applicability to the constitutional provision under consideration. |
The brief is deliberately concise. The full judgment must still be consulted before relying on a particular passage or formulating the precise ratio for professional legal work.
10. Common mistakes to avoid when reading Ghanaian judgments
Mistake 1: Memorising the facts without understanding the issue. A student may remember the events in Tuffour but fail to explain the constitutional question. Always identify the issue before extracting the rule.
Mistake 2: Treating the headnote as the full judgment. A headnote is a useful summary, but it does not replace the court’s reasoning or formal orders.
Mistake 3: Treating every judicial statement as binding. Distinguish the ratio from obiter dicta and separate majority reasoning from dissenting opinions.
Mistake 4: Ignoring the court hierarchy. Always identify whether the case was decided by the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal or High Court.
Mistake 5: Quoting a case without explaining its relevance. In an examination or legal opinion, explain the principle and connect it to the issue being analysed.
Mistake 6: Using an old case without checking subsequent developments. A case may have been affected by later decisions, legislation or constitutional amendments.
Mistake 7: Confusing a party’s argument with the court’s decision. Counsel’s submission is not necessarily the rule adopted by the court.
Mistake 8: Citing an unverified proposition. Check the actual judgment and report citation before attributing a legal principle to a case.
Conclusion
Reading Ghanaian judgments is a process of legal analysis rather than simple memorisation. The reader must understand the material facts, formulate the issues, identify the applicable law, follow the court’s reasoning and extract the ratio decidendi.
The three cases discussed illustrate different dimensions of this process. Tuffour v Attorney-General is a leading authority on constitutional interpretation; New Patriotic Party v Attorney-General (the 31st December case) illustrates constitutional litigation and supremacy; and J.H. Mensah v Attorney-General demonstrates the interpretation of constitutional requirements governing ministerial appointments and parliamentary approval.
The ultimate objective is to develop the ability to explain not merely what a court decided, but why it decided it, what legal principle the decision establishes, and how that principle applies to a new problem. That is the foundation of effective case analysis in Ghanaian legal education and practice.
Selected authorities and further reading
- Tuffour v Attorney-General — 1980 GLR 637–667. Read the judgment.
- New Patriotic Party v Attorney-General — 1993–94 2 GLR 35–192. Read the judgment.
- J.H. Mensah v Attorney-General — 1997–98 1 GLR 227–281. Read the case summary.
For academic or professional use, consult the full reported judgments to verify the exact ratio, relevant passages and subsequent treatment of each authority.
