THE REPUBLIC vs. NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION EX PARTE SINOHYDRO CORPORATION LTD [2017]DLHC3478

Date	2017-10-27
Suit No.	SUIT NO.CR/636/17
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC3478

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2017]DLHC3478
																																						<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">THE
REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE SINOHYDRO CORPORATION LTD<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (GENERAL
JURISDICTION 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.CR/636/17&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 27TH OCTOBER, 2017<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">

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR 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">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>Applicant has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of
the High Court under Order 55 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Procedure
Rules, C.I 47 for orders in the nature of certiorari and prohibition directed
at the Respondent, National Labour Commission to quash its proceedings and to
prohibit it from hearing a complaint lodged by the interested party against the
applicant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The basis for the invocation of the supervisory
jurisdiction of the High Court by the Applicant has been stated in the
affidavit that accompanied the application. The Applicant claims to be a
limited liability company with the interested party its employee until sometime
in 2014. That whiles in its employment the interested party was injured and
both subsequently appeared before the Municipal Labour Officer at Wenchi
wherein a package was agreed as compensation for the interested party. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>With the interested party not satisfied with the
package, he commenced an action at the High Court, Wenchi in suit no
C/2/16/2014 claiming among other reliefs compensation and medical expenses. The
life of that suit was however truncated when the interested party filed a
motion to discontinue, which said application was granted without liberty to
re-apply. Applicant claim that notwithstanding the striking out of the suit
filed at the Wenchi High Court without liberty to re-apply the interested party
has commenced another action at the Labour Commission whose factual basis is
rooted in the very facts that gave rise to the suit that was filed at Wenchi
High Court. To Applicant he has made known to the Respondent in its hearing on
10th May, 2016 that it lacked jurisdiction but the Respondent has
brushed same aside and referred the issue to its Labour Department to
investigate.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the 16th of October, 2017 when the
application came on for hearing before the court there was no affidavit in
opposition from the Respondent even though there was unimpeachable evidence
that it had been served. The court accordingly granted leave for the Applicant
to move the application and adjourned for its ruling today. The interested
party has subsequently filed its affidavit in opposition and statement of case
and I think it right for the court to consider same in its ruling. &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>In its affidavit in opposition, Evans Kwaku Duku, the
interested party has deposed that what was determined by the Municipal Labour
Officer at Wenchi was in respect of the issue of compensation under the Workmen
Compensation Act, PNDCL 187 and the suit he filed at Wenchi High Court which
was discontinued was in respect of unfair dismissal. And upon realizing that
under section 64 of the Labour Act, Act 651 the jurisdiction for determination
of matters of unfair dismissal was within the remit of the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Labour Commission, he discontinued same and filed a
complaint at the Labour Commission. Interested party further claim that as the
High Court was not vested with original jurisdiction to deal with unfair
dismissal at first instance, the order of the High Court stating that it had no
liberty to re-apply should be considered to be a void order and this court
being a court of coordinate jurisdiction should not be bound by such void
order.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Interested party further contend that Respondent is
acting within its jurisdiction and has not exceeded its jurisdiction or
violated any rule of natural justice to warrant the invocation of the
supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. And as the precondition necessary
to trigger the supervisory jurisdiction of the court has not been met this
application ought not to be entertained by the court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The third ground which interested party stands on for
the dismissal of the application in both his affidavit in opposition and the
statement of case by his lawyers is to the effect that both parties have
appeared before the Respondent and the Applicant has submitted before the
Respondent that the latter’s jurisdiction was ousted. This has been referred by
the Respondent to its Chief Labour Officer to examine same and report back to
the Respondent and it was whiles the Chief Labour Officer has not completed its
investigations that Applicant has rushed to the court to invoke its supervisory
jurisdiction. <o:p></o:p>