A private citizen, Elorm Kwami Gorni, has sued the Attorney General, Dominic Ayine, and Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie at the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of Ghana’s legal vacation arrangements.
Mr Gorni is asking the Supreme Court to review the practice of suspending sittings of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court for about two months each year, arguing that the arrangement undermines citizens’ constitutional right to timely access to justice.
The suit, filed on July 28, 2026, invokes the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution.
The Attorney General and Chief Justice have been named as the first and second defendants respectively.
At the centre of the case is the complete suspension of sittings at the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court from August 1 to September 30 during the legal vacation.
Mr Gorni argues that while the High Courts continue to sit on a limited basis through designated vacation courts to deal with specified urgent matters, the two appellate courts do not sit throughout the period.
He contends that the arrangement forces litigants with pending matters before the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court to wait until the legal vacation ends, potentially causing significant delays in the administration of justice.
According to the plaintiff, the suspension restricts litigants’ constitutional right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time.
Mr Gorni is specifically asking the Supreme Court to declare Rule 61(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (C.I. 19), and Rule 82 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I. 16), unconstitutional to the extent that they permit the suspension of sittings of the two courts during the legal vacation.
He argues that the rules, together with the administrative practice through which they are implemented, are inconsistent with several provisions of the 1992 Constitution, including Articles 19(1), 23, 33, 125 and 296.
The plaintiff says the two-month suspension can delay appeals, constitutional actions, applications for stay of execution, interlocutory applications, judicial review proceedings and other matters before the appellate courts.
He further argues that the legal vacation arrangement violates the constitutional requirement that administrative bodies and officials act fairly and reasonably.
According to Mr Gorni, the organisation of the judicial calendar and determination of when courts sit are administrative functions and must therefore comply with Article 23 of the Constitution.
He has, however, made it clear that his challenge is not directed at judges’ entitlement to annual leave or periods of rest.
Rather, he wants the Supreme Court to determine whether judicial leave can be organised without completely suspending the constitutional functions of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and, in the process, delaying access to justice.
As part of the reliefs sought, Mr Gorni is asking the Supreme Court to direct the Chief Justice to introduce alternative arrangements, including rotational sittings, vacation panels or staggered judicial leave, to enable the two courts to continue hearing cases throughout the legal year.
He maintains that the increased number of justices on the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal makes such arrangements practicable while still preserving judicial officers’ entitlement to annual leave.
The suit has therefore brought Ghana’s longstanding legal vacation system before the Supreme Court for constitutional scrutiny, particularly its impact on timely justice, access to the appellate courts and the constitutional right of appeal.
