GORDON LOTSU vs. CHRAJ [2017]DLHC3930

Date	2017-04-28
Suit No.	SUIT NO: HRCM/0133/2016
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC3930

JUSTICE GIFTY AGYEI ADDO HIGH COURT JUDGE

GORDON C. AKPADIE ESQ. COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT.

BEDE TUKU ESQ. COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2017]DLHC3930
																																						<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" >GORDON LOTSU<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CHRAJ<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (HUMAN RIGHT
DIVISION 1), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>SUIT NO: HRCM/0133/2016&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;28TH APRIL, 2017<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">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>&nbsp;The Applicant on 8th December, 2016, instituted the
present action for a writ of Mandamus to issue against the Respondent, ordering
it to perform a public duty pursuant to the Data Protection Act 2012. From his
66 paragraphed affidavit in support of the application as well as his statement
of case and the submissions of Applicant Counsel at the hearing of the
application, the Applicant’s case is as follows: <o:p></o:p>That he has obtained judgment in the United Kingdom for the sum of
Three Billion, Seven <o:p></o:p>Hundred and forty-one million pound sterling (£3.741) against the
British government against whom he has failed to execute the said judgment
through his personal efforts. <o:p></o:p>That among the institutions in Ghana the Applicant contacted to
assist him to enforce the said judgment is the Respondent. According to the
Applicant, in the in the course of dealing with the Respondent, the Respondent
had verbally intimated to him that it had obtained some information through
correspondence with the British Commonwealth, which information the Applicant
deems may be pertinent to advance his case against the British Government. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is the Applicant’s case that in spite of his demand from the
Respondent to make available to him the said information, indicated to him by
the Respondent as having been obtained from the British Commonwealth, the
Respondent has failed to make same available to him. Hence, the Applicant is in
this Court asking that the Respondent be compelled by an order of mandamus to
make the said documents available to him. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Respondent has resisted the application stating that after it
had been contacted for the performance of the task for which the Applicant is
in Court, it had communicated to the Applicant by a letter stating that it had
no jurisdiction to deal with the issues set forth before it by the Applicant
way back in 2013. The Respondent in support of this assertion attached to its
affidavit in answer Exhibit ‘A’, the said letter. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is to be noted that whilst Exhibit ‘A’ dates back to 2013, the
issues as presented to this <o:p></o:p>Court by the Applicant for which an order of Mandamus is to be
issued are within the year 2014. Clearly therefore, the affidavit in answer of
the Respondent does not address the Applicant’s case for the year 2014. Be that
as it may, the issue which is pertinent for determination by this Court in
order for an order of mandamus to lie is whether the Applicant in this case has
satisfied the requirements for the grant of an order of mandamus against the
Respondent. The power of the High Court to exercise supervisory powers of
judicial review is derived from the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana,
1992, which per Article 141 provides as follows: <o:p></o:p>