REPUBLIC vs. CENTRAL REGIONAL MINISTER AND ANOTHER; EX PARTE ACTION CONGRESS PARTY [1980]DLHC1623

REPUBLIC vs. CENTRAL REGIONAL MINISTER AND ANOTHER; EX PARTE ACTION CONGRESS P... [1980]DLHC1623

Date	1980-04-03
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLHC1623

OSEI-HWERE J.

DE GRAFT AIDOO FOR THE APPLICANTS.

SAM BADDOO PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1980]DLHC1623
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>CENTRAL REGIONAL MINISTER AND ANOTHER; EX PARTE ACTION
CONGRESS PARTY<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST] <o:p></o:p>[1980] GLR 527<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:
3 APRIL 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">

DE GRAFT AIDOO FOR THE APPLICANTS.<o:p></o:p>

SAM BADDOO, PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.<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">

OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>When the
applicants’ motion came before the court on 17 March 1980, the outstanding
reliefs sought were those of prohibition and mandamus; the relief for
certiorari having been conditionally dismissed at the previous hearing. By
their application for an order of prohibition, the court is invited to restrain
the Regional Minister and the Deputy Regional Minister for the Central Region
from distributing or selling essential commodities including outboard motors and
cutlasses at the Central Regional and District Offices of the People’s National
Party or through Mr. Gustav Ackumey of Cape Coast, a staunch member of the
People’s National Party. They also pray for an order of mandamus to compel the
Regional Minister and the Deputy Regional Minister to do the following acts:<o:p></o:p>“(a) to
distribute and/or sell essential commodities including outboard motors and
cutlasses only through the registered commercial houses in Cape Coast and
elsewhere in the Central Region; <o:p></o:p>(b) to
publish the quantities of essential commodities including outboard motors and
cutlasses so far received, the date of receipt, the warehouses in which they
are kept, the persons to whom sales have been made, the persons who have
conducted such sales and the mode of distribution and/or sales; <o:p></o:p>(c) to
refer the matter to the police for prosecution; and (d) to declare the source
of the said outboard motors.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Principal State Attorney has raised preliminary objections to this outstanding
application. In regard to the prohibition sought, he has contended that the
application can only be entertained where it is disclosed that both the
Regional Minister and the Deputy Regional Minister (hereinafter to be referred
to as the respondents) or either of them were exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions and, whilst sitting as a judicial or quasi-judicial
tribunal, they have exceeded their jurisdiction. With regard to mandamus, it
was argued that it will only lie where it is established that there is a legal
duty imposed on the respondents which they have failed or refused to discharge.
<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was
contended that the applicants’ affidavits do not disclose either that the
respondents were exercising a judicial function or that an enactment imposed a
duty on them for the benefit of the applicants, such as that of selling
essential commodities, which they have failed to carry out.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the applicants fired his opening salvo to repel the objections raised with
the following proposition:<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">“Wherever
a public officer acting in his public capacity, does an act which affects the
rights of citizens or if he takes a decision which affects the rights of
citizens that public officer is under a legal duty to be honest, fair and
disinterested in the decision he takes or the act he does. If he does not do
this or if he takes the decision or does the act in bad faith or if he takes
the decision or does the act with a view to discriminate against citizens
equally entitled to the benefit of the decision, that public officer can be
prevented by prohibition which, under the Constitution, 1979, the court is
entitled as of right to grant.”<o:p></o:p>