NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE KENTE AND ADINKRA WEAVERSASSOCIATION vs. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVES [1980]DLHC1614

NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE KENTE AND ADINKRA WEAVERSASSOCIATION vs. REGISTRAR OF CO-... [1980]DLHC1614

Date	1980-07-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLHC1614

TAYLOR J.

KWAME TETTEH FOR THE PETITIONER

S. A. X. TSEGAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1980]DLHC1614
																																						<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" >NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE KENTE AND ADINKRA WEAVERSASSOCIATION vs.
<o:p></o:p>REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVES<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1980] GLR 821<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:
28
JULY 1980<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">

KWAME TETTEH FOR THE PETITIONER.<o:p></o:p>

S. A. X. TSEGAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiffs in this suit are a co-operative association with limited liability
registered under sections 4 and 5 of the Co-operative Societies Decree, 1968
(N.L.C.D. 252). In compliance with the provisions of section 8 of the Decree,
the plaintiffs have registered their bye-laws. In their statement of claim,
they aver that the association they registered was originally composed of two
unions from two regions of Ghana and made up of seven societies, but that after
registration and in keeping with their bye-laws they admitted new societies
which covered the Eastern, Volta and Ashanti Regions.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By their
statement of claim, they would seem to be maintaining that, once they have
registered their association, they are entitled to conduct the affairs of the
association in accordance with their registered bye-laws. They also seem to
claim that by their bye-laws they have authority to admit new members to the
association to the exclusion of the defendant and any other authority. In this
suit, they say that the defendant has been interfering with their conduct of
their affairs contrary to the bye-laws and the provisions of the Decree and
that he has been usurping their powers of admitting new members, by himself
admitting new members. The present action was therefore instituted, inter alia,
for “Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his servants or agents
from interfering with the day-to-day affairs of the plaintiffs and also from
registering non-members of the association.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In an
interlocutory application on notice for an interim order of injunction, counsel
for the Registrar of Co-operatives, Mrs. Orleans, has raised a preliminary
objection contending that an injunction is not a permissible remedy to be
prayed against a servant of the Republic and therefore the interlocutory
application should be dismissed in limine. The argument she put forward ran
like this;<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The post
of Registrar of Co-operatives was established by N.L.C.D. 252. Under the
Decree, apparent from reading it, the Registrar of Co-operatives hereinafter
described as the registrar, is charged with the responsibility of seeing to the
proper and efficient administration of the Decree. That apart, the registrar is
a civil servant working in the Department of Co-operatives under the Ministry
of Local Government, Co-operatives and Consumer Affairs. Counsel submitted that
under section 68 of N.L.C.D. 252 his remuneration is charged to the
Consolidated Fund. She referred me to the definition of public officer in
article 213 (1) of the Constitution, 1979. The articles reads:<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">“ ’public
office’ includes an office the emoluments attaching to which are paid directly
from the Consolidated Fund or directly out of moneys provided by Parliament and
an office in a public corporation established entirely out of public funds or
moneys provided by Parliament.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
light of this, she submitted that a public officer is a servant of the Republic
having regard to section 24 of the State Proceedings Act, 1961 (Act 51), which
has defined a public servant in relation to the Republic as including “any
public officer, a member of the armed forces, and a Minister.”<o:p></o:p>Having
thus submitted that the registrar is a servant of the Republic, counsel then
referred me to section 13 (2) of Act 51. The section reads:<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">“13. (2)
The court shall not in any civil proceedings grant any injunction or make any
order against a servant of the Republic if the effect of granting the
injunction or maki</main>