A private citizen and researcher, Elorm Kwami Gorni, is suing Attorney General Dominic Ayine and Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie over the legal vacation arrangements of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.

The suit, dated July 28, 2026, challenges the constitutionality of the annual suspension of sittings at the two appellate courts from August 1 to September 30, arguing that the practice could deprive citizens of their constitutional right to justice within a reasonable time.

Consequently, Mr Gorni has invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution.

Article 2(1) of the 1992 Constitution empowers any person to challenge laws, acts or omissions that contravene the Constitution directly at the Supreme Court, while Article 130(1) grants the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction in matters involving the interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution.

Together, the provisions form the legal basis for invoking the Court’s authority to determine whether an act, law or omission is consistent with the 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 the full two-month vacation for the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal could leave parties with pending cases waiting until the legal vacation ends before their matters can be heard.

The plaintiff says the suspension could particularly delay appeals, constitutional cases, applications for stay of execution, interlocutory applications and judicial review proceedings.

He is therefore challenging the rules that allow the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal to suspend their sittings during the legal vacation, praying 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.

Mr Gorni, in his application, questions the implementation of the rules, citing their alleged inconsistency 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 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 is seeking to determine whether alternative arrangements can be introduced to allow the courts to deal with urgent cases during the legal vacation.

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 how to balance judicial rest with timely access to justice.