ADAMU vs UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST AND ANOTHER [1999]DLHC101

Date	1999-07-15
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1999]DLHC101

KUSI-APPIAH J

E VA ADJETEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

BARTON ODRO (WITH HIM KWABENA OWUSU) FOR THE FIRST DEFENDANT.

D K OFOSU-QUARTEY FOR THE SECOND DEFENDANT APPLICANT.

[1999]DLHC101
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">ADAMU<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, AGONA SWEDRU]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000]
1 GLR 548<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>E
VA ADJETEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.BARTON ODRO (WITH HIM
KWABENA OWUSU) FOR THE FIRST DEFENDANT.D K OFOSU-QUARTEY FOR THE SECOND
DEFENDANT APPLICANT.__________________________________________________________________CORAM:KUSI-APPIAH J__________________________________________________________________JUDGMENT
OF KUSI-APPIAH J.<o:p></o:p>On
October 1998 the plaintiff filed a writ in this court against the defendants
herein. By that writ, the plaintiff sought:<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)
A declaration that the failure or refusal of the defendant university to
promote in 1991[sic](2) the plaintiff from the position of senior lecturer to
that of associate professor was unjustified and discriminatory. <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 compelling the defendant university to remedy the situation by
promoting the plaintiff from the position of senior lecturer to that of
associate professor with effect from 1988 up to the date of the plaintiff’s
retirement from the employment of the university. <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)
A declaration that the decision of the Commissioner for Human Rights and
Administrative Justice dated 29 September 1995 is without justification and
should be set aside. <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)
General damages against the first defendant university.”<o:p></o:p>Upon
being served with the writ, the second defendant, the Commission for Human
Rights and Administrative Justice (hereinafter referred to as the commission)
entered conditional appearance and then moved the court to set aside the writ
on the commission because the commission claims that this court is bereft of
jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the commission’s first contention was that
the High Court cannot exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the commission in
view of the provisions of section 22(1) of the Commission on Human Rights and
Administrative Justice Act, 1993 (Act 456). He argued that the decisions,
findings or recommendations of the commission is only subject to the
supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and maintained that by section
22(1) of Act 456 which states, inter alia, that: “Subject to the supervisory
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, no proceedings shall lie against the
Commission . . .” the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court on the
commission is clearly ousted. Learned counsel submitted that the suit against
the commission is therefore an abuse of the court’s process as there is no
legal basis for instituting the action against the commission. He maintained
that the plaintiff should have left the commission alone and taken action
against the first defendant university.<o:p></o:p>By
way of reply, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter
referred to as the plaintiff) contended otherwise. He argued that the ouster
clause in the said section 22 of Act 456 should be declared nul</main>