AMOAH AND OTHERS vs. WEST AFRICAN EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL AND OTHERS [1970]DLHC2073

Date	1970-11-13
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1970]DLHC2073

ANNAN J.

K. ABEYIE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

C. QUIST FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1970]DLHC2073
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >AMOAH AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>WEST AFRICAN EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
KUMASI]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;[1971] 1 GLR 63<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
13 NOVEMBER 1970.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

K. ABEYIE
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

ANNAN J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ANNAN J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an application by the plaintiffs for an order of interim injunction restraining
the defendants from conducting examinations in four subjects scheduled to take
place during 16 November to 2 December 1970.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before
the hearing of the motion, counsel for the defendants sought leave to raise and
argue certain preliminary objections notice of which had been given in the
defendants’ affidavit in opposition to the motion. The preliminary objections
were based on two matters, namely, that the writ and statement of claim
disclose no cause of action and that the writ is bad. The plaintiffs’ claims as
endorsed on the writ are for:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(a) an
order of mandamus that the defendants do forthwith declare as valid the June
1970 General Certificate of Education school certificate examination held in 36
centres in Kumasi;<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(b) an
order that the purported cancellation of the results is inequitable, unjust and
illegal;<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(c) an
order that the defendants do forthwith award certificates on the result of the
examination in accordance with section 6 (b) of the West African Examinations
Council Act, 1970;<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(d) an
order of injunction to restrain the defendants from holding the examination
scheduled for<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">November
1970;<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(e)
damages for negligence.<o:p></o:p>Looking
at the statement of claim it does appear that the statement does not set out
the averments necessary to support an action for mandamus or for negligence
since there is no averment of a demand and refusal to perform a public duty or
of necessary particulars of negligence and the rest of the reliefs asked for by
the plaintiffs appear to flow from these central complaints. Counsel for the
plaintiffs, however, no doubt impressed by the force of the submissions on this
aspect of the matter shifted his ground and maintained that the reliefs sought
in paragraphs (a) to (c) of the writ are for declaratory judgments or orders as
to the rights of the plaintiffs and the extent of the powers of the defendants
in terms of the statute under which the defendants admittedly derive their
status, powers and duties. Counsel contended that the court can, and in the
circumstances of this case, ought to permit the plaintiffs to amend the wording
of the endorsement to clarify the nature of the reliefs sought.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He states
clearly that this is in no sense an action for mandamus and that the suit was
brought under Order 25, r. 5 of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure)
Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A). The endorsement no dou</main>