EDWARD ANNAN (PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT) vs. UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON. (DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENT) [2002]DLHC7485

EDWARD ANNAN (PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT) vs. UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON. (DEFENDANTS/R... [2002]DLHC7485

Date	2002-12-18
Suit No.	SUIT NO. C.1653/2002
Citation No.	[2002]DLHC7485

HIS LORDSHIP MR. G. A. ARYEETEY J.

[2002]DLHC7485
																																						<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" >EDWARD ANNAN<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT
NO. C.1653/2002&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 18TH DECEMBER, 2002<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

HIS LORDSHIP MR. G. A. ARYEETEY, J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>ARYEETEY,
J. <o:p></o:p>This
is a motion on notice for an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain the
Defendant/Respondent, its Departments, organisations, agents, servants, workers
or whosoever from evicting, ejecting from or howsoever depriving the
Plaintiff/Applicant of his official accommodation in House No. 4, Link Road,
Achimota pending the hearing and determination of this suit. <o:p></o:p>In
moving the motion Counsel for Plaintiff/Applicant said the Plaintiff has worked
with the Defendant institution since April 1975 and rose through the ranks to
the grade of Assistant Registrar. By virtue of his employment plaintiff was
given official accommodation at House No. 4 Link Road, Achimota. However, on
9th November 2001 defendant received a letter dated 1st November 2001 from the
Defendant institution signed by the Vice-Chancellor and the contents were that
the Disciplinary Board had decided that Plaintiff's appointment be terminated
forthwith, that is with effect from 31st October, 2001. The contention of
Plaintiff is that the purported termination of his appointment was wrongful and
unlawful. The basis of that contention is that the Disciplinary Board has no
authority to terminate Plaintiff's appointment, because there is no statute
that vests the authority in the Disciplinary Board to terminate the appointment
of a Senior Member. Learned Counsel contended that Plaintiff's appointment was
made by the University Council and therefore it is the appointing body which
has the authority to terminate his appointment. Any body which seeks to
exercise that function to the exclusion of the University Council acts
unlawfully. Based on the unlawful termination of his appointment the defendant
wrote to Plaintiff to quit his official accommodation. The defendant interfered
with water going to plaintiff's accommodation and as such the defendant is
threatening to forcibly eject the plaintiff unless this court prevents the
defendant from carrying out its intention and that plaintiff stands to suffer
more hardship, inconvenience and irreparable damage if he is ejected. <o:p></o:p>In
opposing the motion, Counsel for Defendant/Respondent submitted that a party
which seeks an equitable remedy from the Court must show one of the legal
grounds which has been decided by the Court. What Plaintiff/Applicant has done
is that he failed to refer to any one of the grounds. One would have thought
that in support of this application Plaintiff/Applicant would have said that it
is not the Disciplinary Board which is mandated to take disciplinary
proceedings against members of the University or the Applicant would have
exhibited the statute or regulation concerned and pointed out that our action
is wrong. Surprisingly all we have are two exhibits asking him to vacate the
bungalow and he says no because he is still a staff of the University. He has
not argued that there is a breach of the law of natural justice or he has a
legal right which has been infringed by the Defendant/Respondent. Learned
Counsel then gave account of what led to the writing of the two letters asking
the Plaintiff/Applicant to vacate his official residence and referred to the
annexures to the affidavit in opposition. According to Counsel the Defendant/Respondent
set up a fact finding committee to investigate certain allegations made against
the Plaintiff/Applicant. Based on the report of the Fact Finding Committee the
Disciplinary Board met on the 16-10-01 and the plaintiff/applicant appeared before
it to defend his conduct. Due process was followed and out of that the
termination was done by the Vice-Chancellor. As to whether it is the
Disciplinary Board of the Defendant institution that is charged with the
authority to discipline its members of staff instead of the University Council,
Learned Counsel submitted that it is the Disciplinary Board which is clothed
with that power. On the issue of convenience and hardship Counsel submitted
that another member of staff has been allocated the bungalow and he is
suffering extreme hardship with his family and added that if in the very
unlikely event that plaintiff wins the case, he will be entitled to damages
since plaintiff cannot be forced on the Defendant to re-employ him so plaintiff
should relocate himself now. <o:p></o:p>After
reading the motion paper and the affidavits the Court find that the bungalow
was allocated to the Plaintiff/Applicant by the Defendant/Respondent by virtue
of plaintiff's employment with the defendant institution. <o:p></o:p>Secondly
by a letter dated 1st November 2001 signed by the Vice-Chancellor, plaintiff's
appointment with the defendant institution was terminated with effect from 31st
October, 2001. <o:p></o:p>Thirdly
by letters dated 22nd May, 2002 and 27th June, 2002 respectively, in accordance
with Housing Regulations of the Defendant institution, Plaintiff/Applicant
should have vacated the bungalow immediately his appointment was terminated but
he was given Six (6) months extension of time that is up to 31st May 2002 to
give vacant possession but up till now Plaintiff/Applicant is occupying the
bungalow. <o:p></o:p>Finally,
the said bungalow has since been allocated to another member of staff of the
Defendant institution. In view of these findings the Court is of the view that
the Plaintiff/Applicant has not been able to persuade this Court to exercise
its discretion in his favour since if he wins the suit he can adequately be
compensated in damages. Consequently, the application brought by the plaintiff
for an order for interlocutory injunction against the Defendant/Respondent is
dismissed.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>