COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE vs. E P CHURCH [2001]DLHC1182

Date	2001-02-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2001]DLHC1182

ASARE KORANG J

JUSTIN DORGU FOR THE APPLICANT.

SAVIOUR DZIKUNU FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2001]DLHC1182
																																						<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">COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE<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">E P CHURCH<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, HO]<o:p></o:p>[2001-2002]
1 GLR 356<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 22 FEBRUARY 2001<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JUSTIN
DORGU FOR THE APPLICANT.<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">

SAVIOUR
DZIKUNU FOR THE RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Asare
Korang J. <o:p></o:p>The
applicant on 12 June 2000 filed an originating motion on notice for an order
compelling the respondent to implement the decision of the applicant dated 19
July 1999 to the effect that:<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">“The
complainants be immediately paid an additional severance award amounting to the
difference between the total years service and the eight years’ payment made to
them in accordance with article 41 of the 1996 conditions of service of the EP
Church, Ghana Employees.”<o:p></o:p>On
the date fixed for the hearing of the application, counsel for the respondent,
Mr Saviour Dzikunu, took a preliminary objection raising two main points
against the action brought by the applicant. Mr Dzikunu first argued referring
to article 218(d)(iii) of the Constitution, 1992 and section 18(1)(ii) of the
Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice Act, 1993 (Act 456) that
the applicant has no cause of action against the respondent because the action
should not have been brought in by the applicant, but by the persons who were
the petitioners or complainants before the applicant, the applicant himself
having acquired no rights as against the respondent.<o:p></o:p>To
this argument, counsel for the applicant, Mr Dorgu, responded that articles
218(d)(iii) and 229 of the Constitution, 1992 and section 18(1)(ii) of Act 456,
vest the applicant with power to sue because by those provisions he has
supplanted the interest of the complainants.<o:p></o:p>Article
218(d)(iii) of the Constitution, 1992 provides:<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">“218.
The functions of the Commission shall be defined and prescribed by Act of
Parliament and shall include the duty ... (d) to take appropriate action to
call for the remedying, correction and reversal of instances specified in
paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this clause through such means as are fair,
proper and effective, including ...<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(iii) bringing proceedings in a competent
Court for a remedy to secure the termination of the offending action or
conduct, or the abandonment or alteration of the offending procedures.”<o:p></o:p>