a private citizen and researcher, Elorm Kwami Gorni, has filed a suit at the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Ghana’s legal vacation arrangements for the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.
The suit, filed on July 28, 2026, names Attorney General Dominic Ayine and Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie as defendants.
Mr Gorni is questioning the annual suspension of sittings at the two appellate courts from August 1 to September 30, arguing that the arrangement could affect citizens’ constitutional right to access justice within a reasonable time.
He has invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution.
According to Mr Gorni, while the High Court continues to hear cases during the legal vacation through designated Vacation Courts, the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal do not sit throughout the two-month period.
He argues that this could leave litigants with pending matters before the two appellate courts waiting until the legal vacation ends.
The plaintiff says the suspension could particularly delay appeals, constitutional cases, applications for stay of execution, interlocutory applications and judicial review proceedings.
Mr Gorni is 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 allow sittings of the two courts to be suspended during the legal vacation.
He argues that the rules and the way they are implemented are inconsistent with Articles 19(1), 23, 33, 125 and 296 of the Constitution.
The plaintiff further contends that decisions on when the courts sit constitute an administrative function and must comply with the constitutional principles of fairness and reasonableness.
Mr Gorni has stressed that his challenge is not aimed at preventing judges from taking annual leave or getting adequate rest.
Rather, he wants the Supreme Court to determine whether judicial leave can be arranged without bringing the constitutional functions of the two appellate courts to a complete halt.
Among the reliefs being sought is an order directing the Chief Justice to consider alternative arrangements, including rotational sittings, vacation panels or staggered leave for judges.
He argues that such measures could allow the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal to continue hearing cases throughout the legal year while still ensuring that judges enjoy their entitlement to annual leave.
The case brings Ghana’s longstanding legal vacation practice before the Supreme Court and raises broader questions about balancing judicial rest with timely access to justice.
Read the reliefs being sought below:
a) A declaration that the practice of legal vacation as observed by the Superior Courts of Judicature of the Republic of Ghana, insofar 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 Articles 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, insofar as it results in 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 in the administration of justice and restricting litigants’ access to the courts, is inconsistent with and in contravention of Articles 1(2), 19(1), 23, 33, 125 and 296 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992, and is therefore unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect to 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, 1996 (C.I. 16), insofar as they provide for or permit the suspension of the 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 down Rule 61(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (C.I. 19), and Rule 82 (Vacation) of the 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 organise and administer the system of justice in a manner that ensures the continuous institutional availability of the Superior Courts for the 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, in conformity with the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992.
Also read:
