MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND OTHERS vs. ANNAN AND OTHERS [2001]DLHC1208

Date	2001-03-09
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2001]DLHC1208

ASIAMAH J

G Y F KPODO SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPLICANTS.

ACKAH GYASI FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[2001]DLHC1208
																																						<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">MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND OTHERS<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">ANNAN AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[2001-2002]
1 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">

<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: 9 MARCH 2001<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>G Y
F KPODO SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPLICANTS.<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">

ACKAH
GYASI FOR THE RESPONDENTS. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Asiamah J. On
16 February 2001 the applicants who are judgment debtors filed a motion on
notice: “to halt the on-going process of going into execution against the State
by the respondents as same is statute-barred and plagued with irregularities.”<o:p></o:p>The
applicants are state institutions. The respondents were all former employees of
the first applicant. They were retrenched by the government on or about 31 May
1994. Consequent upon their retrenchment the respondents successfully initiated
an action against the defendants, agents of the Government of Ghana on 2
October 1996 and obtained judgment against the defendants for the total
judgment sum of ¢368,327,537.96 inclusive of costs.<o:p></o:p>The
applicants made several unsuccessful attempts to get the judgment sum reviewed
or execution stayed. On 16 February 2001, the applicants discontinued their
appeal lodged against a ruling of this court delivered on 10 November 2000 only
to come back to court again seeking to stop the respondents from going into
execution. The basis of the applicants’ present application is rested in their
contention that the applicants being state institutions, and the respondents’
action having commenced on 2 October 1996 prior to the enactment of the new
State Proceedings Act, 1998 (Act 555) the provisions of the old State
Proceedings Act, 1961 (Act 51) governed the post-trial processes of going into
execution. Under section 15(4) of Act 51, the learned counsel rightly argued
that the respondents could not go into execution against the first applicant.<o:p></o:p>It
is provided in Act 51, s 15(4) thus:<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">“(4)
Save as aforesaid no execution or attachment or process in the nature thereof
shall be issued out of any court for enforcing payment by the Republic of any
such money or costs as afore-said, and no person shall be individually liable
under any order for the payment by the Republic . . . of any such money or
costs.”<o:p></o:p>Before
the coming into being of the Constitution, 1979 a successful party to an action
against the State or an agent of the State like any of the applicants in this
action, could only go into execution against the State by first obtaining an
Attorney-General’s fiat so to do. The Constitution, 1979, by its article
211(1), came to change the state of the law as regards execution against the
State. The said article 211 of the Constitution, 1979 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">“211.
(1) Where a person has a claim against the Government that claim may be
enforced as of right by proceedings taken against the Government for that
purpose without the grant of a fiat or the use of the process known as pet</main>