The Supreme Court, in a majority ruling with Justice Pwamang dissenting, has approved the New Patriotic Party’s request to annul the Tamale High Court decision that invalidated the Kpandai election, which resulted in the election of Matthew Nyindam.
Daniel Nsala Wakpal, the NDC Parliamentary candidate for Kpandai, submitted an election petition that led to the cancellation of Nyindam’s election.
Nyindam’s legal representatives subsequently brought the issue before the apex court, contending that the High Court judge did not have jurisdiction and that the petition was submitted beyond the required 21-day timeframe.
On Tuesday, January 13, the attorneys requested the Supreme Court to reverse the Tamale High Court’s ruling, arguing that the NDC Kpandai Parliamentary candidate lodged his petition on January 25, 2025, after the 21-day deadline.
They pointed out that the gazette notification of the Kpandai election results was published on December 24, asserting that the judge made a jurisdictional error by hearing the case.
Gary Nimako, the lead counsel for Nyindam, reiterated that all subsequent actions taken by the Tamale High Court after the expiration of the mandatory period were incorrect and should be deemed null and void.
He urged the court to approve their request to annul the Tamale High Court’s ruling.
“The law stipulates the timeframes within which a petition must be filed, and before the High Court can be vested with jurisdiction, this must occur within 21 days following the gazette of the official results.
“We assert that the petition submitted by Wakpal on January 25, 2025, was untimely, and therefore, the High Court judge should have ensured he had jurisdiction before taking on the case. Since this was not done, we argue that the petition and the judgment should be dismissed by this court.
In light of the fact that the High Court judge assumed jurisdiction beyond the mandatory limits set by statute, which is a prerequisite condition, this error is clearly evident on the record. This court cannot ignore it, and thus it is justified in exercising its jurisdiction to quash the decision.
“We have demonstrated to this court that the High Court exceeded the jurisdictional boundaries established by law. We assert that the trial judge committed an error that is apparent on the face of the law, which pertains to jurisdiction and consequently invalidates the judgment rendered on 24 November 2025. Given the violation of section 18 of PNDC Law 284, the High Court’s judgment should be quashed,” submitted Nimako.
However, the legal representatives of Daniel Nsala Wakpal, led by Sika Abla Addo, contested the application.
She emphasized that the Kpandai election results were re-gazetted on January 6, thus their petition was filed within the mandatory 21-day timeframe.
Abla Addo further pointed out that the January 6 gazette was comprehensive, encompassing results from all 276 constituencies, including Kpandai, making it unnecessary for the December 24 gazette to take precedence.
She accused the NPP candidate of selectively choosing the gazette notification after Nyindam relied on the January 6 version at the Tamale High Court. Consequently, she requested the court to dismiss the application.
“We oppose the application and rely on the affidavit in opposition filed on January 6, along with the statement of case submitted on the same date.
“Our argument is that the applicant is selectively choosing gazette notifications, as the decision based on the gazette notification was derived from a petition that relied on gazette notifications. The gazette presented by the applicant today is the same one they claim should not be relied upon.
“There were two gazettes – the one from January 6, 2025, and the one from December 24, 2025.
The gazette dated 6 January 2025 should take precedence over the gazette dated 24 December. With all intents and purposes, the court was satisfied that a gazette notification existed on 6 January 2025, and it was based on this that the court assumed jurisdiction, proceeded to hear the matter, and delivered a judgment.
“It could not have escaped anyone, including the Electoral Commission, that the gazette was not published on 24 December 2024 at the time this petition was filed. We are urging this court to recognize the gazette from January 6, as it served as the foundation for the proceedings of the High Court originating from the Electoral Commission,” reiterated Abla Addo.
The lawyer representing the Electoral Commission, which was the second interested party, also acknowledged the existence of both gazette notifications and noted that he had obtained hard copies of them.
