The Court of Appeal in Kumasi has ruled that the Ghana Health Service and district hospitals operating under it have the legal capacity to sue and be sued in their own names, holding that public healthcare institutions cannot escape judicial accountability merely because their enabling legislation does not expressly state that they are juristic persons.
The decision was delivered on July 23, 2026, in the case of Emmanuel Frimpong Manso v. Atwima Mponua District Hospital & Others, Civil Appeal No. H1/062/2026.
The three-member panel, presided over by Justice Eric Baah, JA, with Justices J. B. Nabarese, JA, and Alibaba Abature, JA, unanimously allowed the appeal and set aside a ruling of the High Court, Kumasi.
The Court further directed that the case be returned to the High Court for continuation before a different judge.
Background to the case
The case arose from a claim brought by Emmanuel Frimpong Manso, spouse and personal representative of the late Akosua Asantewaa, against Atwima Mponua District Hospital, the Ghana Health Service and the Attorney-General.
According to the judgment, the deceased had commenced antenatal care at Atwima Mponua District Hospital and was being managed there with the intention of delivering at the facility. Her pregnancy was described as uneventful until about the 38th week, when she was found to have very high blood pressure, headaches and traces of protein in her urine.
The plaintiff alleged that despite these findings, the hospital failed to conduct baseline laboratory investigations to confirm or rule out pre-eclampsia.
He further alleged that a medical doctor overruled the midwife’s assessment that the high blood pressure made vaginal delivery a high-risk option and instead directed that the deceased be induced for vaginal delivery.
The deceased subsequently delivered after about 24 hours but suffered seizures shortly afterwards. The judgment states that the hospital commenced anticonvulsant treatment, but the medication spilled during the seizures.
Her condition deteriorated and she developed breathing difficulties. The plaintiff alleged that there was a delay in obtaining anaesthetist assistance to intubate her, resulting in aspiration of fluids into her lungs. Attempts to revive her subsequently failed.
The plaintiff therefore claimed that the defendants had negligently caused his spouse’s death and sought damages.
High Court strikes out hospital and Ghana Health Service
After being served with the suit, the defendants applied to the High Court to strike out the names of Atwima Mponua District Hospital and the Ghana Health Service.
Their argument was that the two entities were not juristic persons with legal capacity to sue or be sued in their corporate names because their enabling legislation did not expressly confer such capacity.
The High Court accepted the argument and on July 10, 2025, it ruled that the two defendants had not been established by the Ghana Health Service and Teaching Hospitals Act, 1996 (Act 525) with legal capacity to sue and be sued. The High Court consequently struck out their names and directed the plaintiff to commence a fresh action against the appropriate heads of the institutions and join the Attorney-General.
The plaintiff appealed.
Court of Appeal disagrees
The key issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Ghana Health Service and the district hospital could properly be sued in their own names.
The Court examined Act 525 alongside Articles 190, 192 and 295 of the 1992 Constitution. It noted that the Ghana Health Service was established in accordance with Article 190 of the Constitution, which includes the Health Service among Ghana’s Public Services.
Article 192, the Court observed, provides that a public corporation shall not be established except by an Act of Parliament.
The Court therefore concluded that the Ghana Health Service is a public corporation established under Act 525 and that the statutory framework also gave the Service legal personality capable of holding rights, assets and property.
The Court placed particular emphasis on Section 56(1) of Act 525, which transferred the assets, rights and properties of state hospitals and health stations of the Ministry of Health to the Ghana Health Service.
In the Court’s view, the statutory power to hold rights, assets and property was evidence of legal personality.
Public bodies can be held accountable
The Court rejected the argument that the absence of an express provision in Act 525 stating that the Ghana Health Service could sue and be sued meant that it lacked legal capacity.
Relying on the principle in Taff Vale Railway Co. v. Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, the Court reasoned that where legislation creates an entity capable of owning property, employing persons and potentially causing injury in the exercise of its functions, it must be taken to have the implied capacity to be sued for injuries arising from those functions.
The Court held that the Ghana Health Service and the district hospital are empowered to perform functions that may result in injury to individuals. It therefore found that denying them the capacity to be sued could potentially result in injustice.
The Court stated that as public corporations, the Ghana Health Service and the institutions under it are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts where they commit torts, breach contracts, exceed their powers, fail to observe statutory procedures or fail to perform statutory duties.
Court rejects need for fresh suit
The Court also addressed the High Court’s direction that the plaintiff should commence a fresh action against the heads of the institutions. It found this approach problematic even on the assumption that the hospital and Ghana Health Service lacked legal capacity.
The Court noted that the heads of the institutions are individuals and are not themselves corporate bodies with perpetual succession. Consequently, simply directing the plaintiff to sue the heads would not necessarily resolve the legal capacity problem.
Moreover, the Court held that the High Court had other procedural options available.
Under Order 4 rule 5 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), proceedings are not to be defeated by misjoinder or non-joinder of parties. The court also has power to substitute or add parties where necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute are effectively and completely determined.
The Court held that, even if there had been a defect in the description or capacity of the defendants, the High Court could have used its powers of substitution and amendment rather than requiring the plaintiff to start the litigation afresh.
The Court of Appeal stressed that the courts exist to do substantial justice and should avoid allowing technicalities to prevent the determination of the real dispute between parties.
It noted that requiring a fresh action would result in unnecessary delay, additional expense and multiplicity of proceedings, and these precisely are the outcomes that the Civil Procedure Rules seek to prevent.
The Court was therefore satisfied that Atwima Mponua District Hospital and the Ghana Health Service were proper and necessary parties to the proceedings. It concluded that without them, the court would be unable to completely and effectively determine the issues in controversy.
Appeal allowed
The Court in the end held that the High Court erred in concluding that the Ghana Health Service and Atwima Mponua District Hospital lacked legal capacity to be sued simply because Act 525 did not expressly state that they were juristic entities.
The Court maintained the names of the two institutions on the writ of summons and ordered that the substantive case proceed to trial. The High Court’s July 10, 2025 ruling was accordingly set aside and the case was remitted to the High Court for continuation before a different judge.
The Court of Appeal has thus clarified that public healthcare institutions under Act 525 can be sued and held accountable in their own names, even where the law does not expressly state so. The ruling also reinforces that justice should prevail over procedural technicalities, with courts able to correct defects through amendment or substitution rather than requiring litigants to start fresh proceedings. This helps avoid unnecessary delays, costs and multiple lawsuits while ensuring that substantive disputes are properly determined.
