herein is a party” or not. However rule 82 of C.I. 16 defines as “ “party” follows: includes any party to an appeal or other “ “party” proceedings and his counsel.” (e.s.) It is law that the expression except where there is “include” manifested an intention that it should do so, does not have an exclusive connotation in a statutory definition, unlike the word There is “mean”. no such manifestation of intent here. I should therefore hold that the word in the context of this provision includes an interested party. “party” See Ekwam v. Pianim (No.1) (1996-97) SCGLR 117 where this court (coram Kpegah JSC) held that although the application was brought ex parte he ordered that the New Patriotic Party (NPP) be as an “served interested party since it will undoubtedly be affected by the orders of this court.” Rule 45(4) which the applicant comes, falls under IV “PART – ORIGINAL JURISDICTION” of C.I. 16 and it is clear from rule 4(6) under 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS” that a presidential election petition is “PART – within the original jurisdiction of this court. Although the normal rule of construction is that Verba generalia specialibus non derogant the verba generalia will extend to the specialibus if there be an intent to that effect. See New Patriotic Party v. Rawlings (1993-94) 2 GLR 193 at 212 per Aikins JSC. By the express provision of rule 4(6) of C.I. 16 the legislature evinces an intent that the generalia of Part IV should, as far as applicable, extend to a presidential petition specially dealt with under VIII CHALLENGE OF ELECTION OF PRESIDENT” of C.I. 16. I “PART – therefore conclude that the applicant has rightly brought its application for joinder to this petition under rule 45 (4) of C.I. 16.
herein is “ a party” or not. However rule 82 of C.I. 16 defines “party” as follows: “ “party” includes any party to an appeal or other proceedings and his counsel.” (e.s.) It is law that the expression “include” except where there is manifested an intention that it should do so, does not have an exclusive connotation in a statutory definition, unlike the word “mean”. There is no such manifestation of intent here. I should therefore hold that the word “party” in the context of this provision includes an interested party. See Ekwam v. Pianim (No.1) (1996-97) SCGLR 117 where this court (coram Kpegah JSC) held that although the application was brought ex parte he ordered that the New Patriotic Party (NPP) be “served as an interested party since it will undoubtedly be affected by the orders of this court.” Rule 45(4) which the applicant comes, falls under “PART IV – ORIGINAL JURISDICTION” of C.I. 16 and it is clear from rule 4(6) under “PART 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS” that a presidential election petition is within the original jurisdiction of this court. Although the normal rule of construction is that Verba generalia specialibus non derogant the verba generalia will extend to the specialibus if there be an intent to that effect. See New Patriotic Party v. Rawlings (1993-94) 2 GLR 193 at 212 per Aikins JSC. By the express provision of rule 4(6) of C.I. 16 the legislature evinces an intent that the generalia of Part IV should, as far as applicable, extend to a presidential petition specially dealt with under “PART VIII – CHALLENGE OF ELECTION OF PRESIDENT” of C.I. 16. I therefore conclude that the applicant has rightly brought its application for joinder to this petition under rule 45 (4) of C.I. 16.
NANA%20ADDO%20DANKWA%20AKUFFO-ADDO%20%26%202ORS.%20VRS.%20JOHN%20DRAMANI%20MAHAMA%20%26%202%20ORS..docx