A plaintiff, Elorm Kwami Gorni, has sued the Attorney General and the Chief Justice at the Supreme Court over Ghana’s annual legal vacation, challenging the decision to suspend sittings of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal for two months every year.
The suit, filed on July 28, 2026, seeks a declaration that the existing legal vacation arrangement is inconsistent with several provisions of the 1992 Constitution, particularly those relating to access to justice, fair hearing within a reasonable time and the exercise of judicial power.
The plaintiff is challenging Rule 61(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 and Rule 82 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996, to the extent that the provisions allow the two superior appellate courts to suspend their regular sittings during the legal vacation.
Under the current arrangement, the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal do not sit from August 1 to September 30 each year.
According to the plaintiff, the arrangement creates a significant interruption in the administration of justice, particularly for litigants whose cases are pending before the country’s two highest appellate courts.
The plaintiff’s case is not that judges should be denied their annual leave.
Rather, he argues that the courts can remain operational while judges take their vacation on a rotational or staggered basis.
He contends that a complete suspension of sittings for approximately two months means that parties with matters before the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal are effectively required to wait until the legal year resumes before their cases can proceed.
The plaintiff argues that this situation could affect the constitutional right of citizens to have their cases determined within a reasonable time.
He further maintains that access to justice should not be merely theoretical, but should be practical and effective, particularly where litigants have already gone through earlier stages of the judicial process and are waiting for their appeals or other proceedings to be determined.
A central issue in the suit is whether the legal vacation arrangement is compatible with the constitutional protections afforded to citizens seeking judicial remedies.
The plaintiff relies on constitutional provisions concerning fair hearing within a reasonable time, access to the courts and administrative justice.
He argues that the complete suspension of sittings of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal places an unnecessary limitation on the ability of litigants to obtain timely judicial remedies.
According to the case, the administrative arrangements governing legal vacation must also satisfy the constitutional requirement that administrative bodies and officials act fairly and reasonably.
The plaintiff therefore wants the Supreme Court to examine whether maintaining a two-month shutdown of the appellate courts is proportionate, especially when other arrangements could allow judicial officers to take their annual leave without bringing appellate proceedings to a halt.
As part of the reliefs being sought, the plaintiff is proposing an alternative system under which judges could take their vacations on a staggered basis while other judges continue to hear cases.
He has suggested rotational vacation sittings, vacation panels and staggered judicial leave as possible ways of maintaining the operations of the courts during the legal vacation.
Under such an arrangement, the courts would not necessarily have to operate at full strength throughout the period, but would retain sufficient judicial capacity to deal with cases that require determination.
The plaintiff argues that this approach would strike a balance between the welfare and leave entitlements of judges and the constitutional rights of litigants.
He further contends that the number of Justices available to serve on the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal makes such an arrangement practicable.
The plaintiff is asking the Supreme Court to declare the contested provisions of the Court of Appeal Rules and Supreme Court Rules unconstitutional to the extent that they permit the complete suspension of sittings of the two courts.
He also wants the court to declare the administrative practice of shutting down the appellate courts during the legal vacation null and void where it conflicts with the 1992 Constitution.
He is further seeking an order directing the Chief Justice to put in place administrative and procedural arrangements that would allow the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal to continue hearing cases throughout the legal year.
The proposed arrangements, according to the suit, could include rotational sittings and vacation panels, allowing the courts to maintain continuity while judges take their annual leave.
If the case succeeds, it could have implications for how Ghana’s superior courts organise their annual legal vacation.
The case places the longstanding practice of legal vacation against the constitutional requirement for timely access to justice and raises questions about whether administrative convenience can justify the complete suspension of proceedings at the country’s highest appellate courts.
For the plaintiff, the issue is therefore not simply about the annual break for judges but about ensuring that the constitutional right to seek and obtain judicial remedies remains effective throughout the year.
The suit, which names the Attorney General and the Chief Justice as respondents, is now before the Supreme Court for determination.
Ghana|Atinkaonline.com|Mavis Fantevi