EMMANUEL ODURO vs. JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA [2016]DLNLC7571

Date	2016-11-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2016]DLNLC7571

[2016]DLNLC7571
																																						<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" >EMMANUEL ODURO<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>JUDICIAL SERVICE OF GHANA<o:p></o:p>[NLC]<o:p></o:p>OUR REF: NLC/C-339/017/016/30R&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;&nbsp;DATE:
21ST NOVEMBER, 2016<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

</div>FOR
THE COMMISSION:<o:p></o:p>CHARLES BAWADUAH (EXECUTIVE SECRETARY) <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:5.0pt;text-align:center;
line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>BRIEF FACTS<o:p></o:p>The complainant, one Emmanuel Oduro was employed by
the judicial services in 1983 as a pensionable officer.<o:p></o:p>In his complaint he claimed that on 24h October
2007 he was asked to appear before a panel of 5 persons including the
supervising high Court Judge of Sunyani in the Brong Ahafo region. He was told
of a litany of allegations including engaging in arbitration of cases and
embezzlement of state funds. He was further removed from office orally and
subsequently invited on phone to Accra on the 7th January, 2008 appear before a
supervising judge on 10th January, 2013.<o:p></o:p>He was on the same day interdicted but the letter of interdiction
was dated 4th January, 2008.That subsequently he was dismissed on 13th
November, 2009.He was seeking a declaration that the dismissal was unjust and
harsh.<o:p></o:p>That base on the fact and evidence available before the
Commission, the Commission gave its decision Dated 3rd July 2013.<o:p></o:p>That the Respondent herein referred to as judicial service applied
to the Commission for a review of its decision. Hence this ruling on the
application for review by the Commission.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>ISSUE<o:p></o:p>Whether or not the Commission has the power to review its
Decision.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>APPLICATION OF
LAW<o:p></o:p>Article23 states: "Administrative bodies and administrative
officials shall act fairly and reasonably and comply with the requirements
imposed on them by law. (emphasis mine) and persons aggrieved by the exercise
of such acts and decisions shall have the right to seek redress before a court
or other tribunal”. The Commission as an administrative body is mandated under
the Constitution 1992 to follow this provision stated supra. That is
administrative bodies must follow and comply with the laws that are imposed on
them.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Neither does the Labour Act 2003, Act 651 nor the Constitution
1992 impose any law on the Commission to review its decisions. Sections 138 and
139 of the Labour Act are explicit on the mandate and functions of the
Commission. Any attempt to go beyond the laws imposed will amount to an ultra
vires act which when brought before any Court of competent jurisdiction will be
struck down.<o:p></o:p>In furtherance of the above Article 23 I quote: “Administrative
bodies and administrative officials shall act fairly and reasonably and comply
with the requirements imposed on them by law and persons aggrieved by the
exercise of such acts and decisions shall have the right to seek redress before
a court or other tribunal (emphasis mine)". The same article gives the
forum at which the laws imposed on administrative bodies which are not
exercised well as described can be questioned. And the forum provided for
persons aggrieved by the acts of the administrative bodies are the court or
tribunal, it is important to note here, the power to review the decision of an
administrative body or official is the court or the tribunal but not the
Commission itself.<o:p></o:p>Sections 138 and 139
respectively under the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651) provide for
the mandate and functions of the Commission. It cannot be gleaned from the
Labour Act that the Commission is clothed with the mandate or power to review
its decision. An Act of Parliament is not a statement in a vacuum. Parliament
intends it's Act to be read</main>