CUSTOMS EXCISE & PREVENTIVE SERVICE vs. NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION & PUBLIC SERVICES WORKERS’ UNION OF GTUC [2009]DLSC6697

CUSTOMS EXCISE & PREVENTIVE SERVICE vs. NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION & PUBLIC SERV... [2009]DLSC6697

Date	2009-02-04
Suit No.	WRIT J1/5/2007 4TH
Citation No.	[2009]DLSC6697

ATUGUBA J.S.C (PRESIDING)

ANSAH J.S.C.

ADINYIRA J.S.C.

DOTSE J.S.C.

ANIN YEBOAH J.S.C.

FIIFI YANKSON FOR THE PLAINTIFF

EFIBA AMIHERE FOR THE DEFENDANT

NAANA JANTUAH BANFUL (CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY)

PHILIP ADDISON FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY

[2009]DLSC6697
																																						<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" >CUSTOMS EXCISE &amp;
PREVENTIVE SERVICE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NATIONAL LABOUR
COMMISSION &amp; PUBLIC SERVICES WORKERS’ UNION OF GTUC<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, 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">

WRIT J1/5/2007 4TH&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: 4TH FEBRUARY, 2009<o:p></o:p>

PHILIP
ADDISON FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>ATUGUBA, J.S.C. <o:p></o:p>The
facts of this case have been related by my brother Dotse, J.S.C. and I would
not repeat them except where necessary. <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff claims before us per its writ of summons as follows: <o:p></o:p>“1. A declaration that on a true and
proper interpretation of the Labour Act 2003 (Act 651), particularly s.1, the
application or the purported application of the said Act to cover the Customs,
Excise and Preventive Service (CEPS) as established by law is inconsistent
with, or in contravention of Article 24 (4) of the Constitution and to that
extent the court ought to declare that restrictions prescribed by law and
reasonably necessary in the interest of national security or public order
require that Customs, Excise &amp; Preventive Service be excluded from the
application of the Labour Act 2003 (Act 651). <o:p></o:p>2. That by virtue of the combined
effect of Article 1(2) and Article 11(6) of the Constitution the Court declares
a Collective Bargaining Certificate dated 20th March 1987 issued to cover the
Customs, Excise &amp; Preventive Service void and of no effect.”<o:p></o:p>It
is obvious that these claims could have been better drafted.&nbsp; However their substance is that <o:p></o:p>(a)
in so far as the Labour Act 2003 (Act 651) applies to the workers of the Customs,
Excise and Preventive Service, the same is inconsistent with or in
contravention of Article 24(4) of the Constitution and to that extent is null
and void. <o:p></o:p>(b)
The continued operation of a Collective Bargaining Certificate dated the 20th
day of March 1987 in respect of the Customs Excise and Preventive Service is
for the same reason also null and void. <o:p></o:p>Preliminary Points <o:p></o:p>The
defendant objects that the plaintiff failed to appeal against the Ruling of the
National Labour Commission dated the 7th day of June 2006 that it has
jurisdiction over it and therefore is out of time in this court.&nbsp; But the plaintiff’s case is not an appeal but
an original action in this court.&nbsp; As this
court is the only competent court to entertain and if appropriate, to grant the
reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in this action, it is difficult to fathom how
there could be an objection to the initiation of the same.&nbsp; See Mensima v. Attorney-General (1996-97) SC
GLR 676.&nbsp; New Patriotic Party v
Attorney-General (Ciba Case) (19996-97)sic SC GLR 729, Sam (No. 2) v
Attorney-General (2000) SC GLR 305, Adofo v. Attorney-General &amp; Cocobod
(2005 – 2006) SC GLR 42. <o:p></o:p>Some
other preliminary objections could, but were not raised as to the legal
capacity of the plaintiff to institute this action.&nbsp; However they would not have defied resolution
so as to allow this action to survive. See Republic v. High Court, Accra, Ex
parte Attorney-General (Delta Foods Case) (1998-99) SC GLR 595. <o:p></o:p>The Position of CEPS under
ordinary Legislation <o:p></o:p>The
Customs, Excise and Preventive Service (Management) Act, 1993 (PNDCL 330) has
no direct provision precluding CEPS from unionizing.&nbsp; S.235 however provides as follows: <o:p></o:p>“For
the administration of this Act all officers shall have the same powers
authorities and privileges as are given by law to Police Officers” There has
been much argument as to the proper scope of this provision as it applies to
CEPS because s.17 of the Police Service Act 1970 (Act 350) provides: <o:p></o:p>“It is a misconduct for a police
officer <o:p></o:p>X&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;X&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; X&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; X&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; X&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; X <o:p></o:p>