INSPECTOR SHITTU WABI AND 77 ORS vs THE INSPETOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [2014]DLHC16450

INSPECTOR SHITTU WABI AND 77 ORS vs THE INSPETOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND THE ATTOR... [2014]DLHC16450

Date	2014-06-17
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BMISC 635/06
Citation No.	[2014]DLHC16450

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KOFI ESSEL MENSAH

MRS. M. N. Y. ACHEAMPONG

NANA ASMAH

[2014]DLHC16450
																																						<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" >INSPECTOR
SHITTU WABI AND 77 ORS<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;THE
INSPETOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SUIT NO. BMISC 635/06&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:&nbsp; 17TH
JUNE, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MRS. M. N. Y. ACHEAMPONG FOR PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KOFI ESSEL MENSAH<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;By the amended writ of summons and the statement of
claim filed on 3rd November, 2011, the plaintiffs claim against the
defendants the following:<o:p></o:p>a.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Their entitlements
for the five (5) or ten (10) years deprived period.<o:p></o:p>b.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The 1st
defendant be ordered to provide counsel for the plaintiffs the net entitlements
of each of the plaintiffs to enable her to compute their gross entitlements
with interest on same from either 1993 or 1994 to date at the current bank
rate.<o:p></o:p>c.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Costs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The undisputed facts of this case are that the
plaintiffs were part of a host of police officers compulsorily retried from the
Police Service on various dates in 1993 and 1994.&nbsp; The males were retired at age fifty five (55)
and the females at age fifty (50).&nbsp; The
Police Administration, in retiring the police officers, followed the tradition
and practice in vogue prior to the coming into force of the 1992 Constitution. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;A few sharper minds amongst the retirees filed a
suit in the Supreme Court to challenge the lawfulness of their retirement.&nbsp; In the case of C. B. BAWUAH v THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND ANOTHER: and that of YOVUYIBOR AND ANOTHER v ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND ANOTEHR, the plaintiffs in the two cases brazed the
trail and brought an action in the Supreme Court for, inter alia, declarations
that as the compulsory retiring age for public officers under article 199(1) of
the Constitution, 1992 was 60 years, the compulsory retiring age for members of
the Police Service who were part of the Public Service was 60 years and not 55
years as was the case before the Constitution came into force; and as such
their premature retirement at the age of 55 years was wrongful and a breach of
the provisions of article 199(1) of the Constitution, 1992.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The judgments in both suits, i.e. C.
B. BAWUAH VRS. ATTORNEY-GENERAL &amp; ANOR, an</main>