ATTORNEY-GENERAL vs. CHRAJ [1999]DLSC16008

Date	1999-06-23
Suit No.	[1998-99] SCGLR
Citation No.	[1999]DLSC16008

CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMlN JSC

AMPIAH JSC

ADJABENG JSC

ATUGUBA JSC

SOPHIAAKUFFO JSC.

HON MARTIN ABK AMIDU DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL WITH HIM MRS BETTY MOULDIDDRISU

CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) FOR PLAINTIFF E K OFOSU-QUARTEY FOR DEFENDANT

[1999]DLSC16008
																																						<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" >ATTORNEY-GENERAL<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CHRAJ<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT,
ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1998-99] SCGLR<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
DATE: 23RD JUNE 1999<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

HON MARTIN ABK AMIDU,
DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL WITH HIM MRS BETTY MOULDIDDRISU, CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY)
FOR &nbsp;PLAINTIFF<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMlN JSC, AMPIAH JSC, ADJABENG JSC , ATUGUBA JSC, &nbsp;SOPHIAAKUFFO JSC.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0in;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;CHARLES
HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC delivered the ruling of
the court. On 31 July 1998 we dismissed the plaintiff's claim in the
instant action, ie Writ No 17/96
against the defendant, the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice.
On the same date we also
dismissed the defendant's (then the plaintiff's) earlier claim against the Attorney-General in Writ
No 3/96 reported as Commission on Human
Rights and Administrative Justice (No 1) v
Attorney-General (1998- 99] SCGLR 871
ante.<o:p></o:p><h1 style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:18.1pt;line-height:
115%">The present suit was obviously in reaction to the said
earlier writ issued by the Commission for Human Rights
and Administra9ve Justice against the Attorney-General,
wherein, in our view, the constitutional
parameters
of the commission's functions were spelled out by us. On hind sight, we should have consolidated the two writs - that is to say, Writ No
3/96 and Writ No 17/96 -
and rendered a single judgment
which would have covered all the
issues raised by the parties. As it happened, we have already furnished our reasons for dismissing the commission's action under Writ No 3/96: see [1998-99] SCGLR 87I ante. To the extent,
therefore, that some of the issues set out for determination in this action are covered by our reasons in Writ No 3/96, those reasons are deemed to be incorporated in the present reasons
and the earlier reasons, where relevant, would be considered as binding
authority in the present judg