NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION vs. GHANA TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD [2009]DLHC4377

Date	2009-03-30
Suit No.	SUIT NO. INDL/12/09
Citation No.	[2009]DLHC4377

KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

[2009]DLHC4377
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">NATIONAL
LABOUR COMMISSION<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (INDUSTRIAL/LABOUR
DIVISION), ACCRA]<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">

SUIT NO.
INDL/12/09&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: 30TH MARCH, 2009<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU,
JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>The applicant company filed a motion on notice against the
respondent for an order to enforce the decision of the National Labour
Commission under Section 172 of Act 651 and Order 19 of CI 47 supported with an
Affidavit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The defendant filed its Affidavit in Opposition and deposed in
paragraph 4 of the said Affidavit that at the hearing of the application,
counsel for the respondent shall raise a preliminary legal objection to the
application on grounds that there is no pending proceedings to warrant an
application of this nature.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 20th May, 2008 counsel for the respondent argued his
legal objection and counsel for the applicant responded, hence this ruling.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel for the respondent Mr. Kwaku Gyawu Baafour submitted that
their objection relates to the way the application was brought. The application
is Motion on Notice for the enforcement of the orders of National Labour
Commission under Section 172 of Act 651 and Order 19 of CI 47. He goes on to
argue that Order 19 of CI 47 which governs applications to court makes
reference to two categories of motions. That is there are two ways by which a
party can file a motion. The first one is where there is pending proceedings
then you first file a motion simpliciter as to what you want the court to do
for you. That is filed in the course of the proceedings. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The next is where an enactment has provided for application to be
made to the High Court. Such application is done by way of originating motion
but not an ordinary motion. He referred the court to the case of Ghana Commercial Bank vs. CHRAJ
(2003-2004) SCGLR 91 at holding 2. He argued that in that case the
Supreme Court relying on the case of People’s
Popular Party vs. Attorney General (1971) 1 GLR 138 held that where an
enactment had provided for an application to be made, you do so by originating
motion or originating summons. According to counsel for the respondent, one can
commence an action by motion but in that case the title is different from
filing motions in the ordinary cause of action.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On what constitute originating summons or motion he referred the
court to the case of Minister of
Local Government vs. Nii Akrashi II (1963) 2 GLR 573 holding 1.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel submitted that when the National Labour Commission is
seeking to enforce its recommendations or the authority of Section 172 of the
Labour Act, it cannot just do so by filing a motion. This is because filing a
motion will mean there is already pending proceedings. In that case, one comes
under Order 19 R 1 (1). But where one is coming under Section 172, then he
should come under Order 19 R 1 (2) which must be by originating motion and not
by ordinary motion.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>