SAMSON H.A.V. ODDOYE AND 7 OTHERS vs. THE GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL [2018]DLCA5152

Date	2018-06-27
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/79/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLCA5152

C. J. HONYENUGA J.A. (PRESIDING)

AVRIL LOVELACE-JOHNSON J.A.

HENRY A. KWOFIE J.A.

F.K. YEBOAH FOR THE APPLICANT/APPELLANT

KIZITO BEYUO FOR THE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

[2018]DLCA5152
																																						<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" >SAMSON H.A.V. ODDOYE AND 7 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANTS/
APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, 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">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL APPEAL NO.
H1/79/2018&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;27th
JUNE 2018 <o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>F.K. YEBOAH FOR THE APPLICANT/APPELLANT <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">

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>C. J. HONYENUGA J.A. (PRESIDING), AVRIL LOVELACE-JOHNSON
J.A., HENRY A. KWOFIE J.A.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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>HENRY KWOFIE J.A<o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court (Human Rights Division) given
on the 31st July 2017. The trial High Court in that ruling, refused
the appellants’ application pursuant to Order 42 rule 1 of the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules (C.I. 47) for a review of the <o:p></o:p>Court’s
earlier decision made on 26th April 2017 by which the Court
dismissed the appellants’ application for mandamus. <o:p></o:p>The
facts leading to the instant appeal are that the appellants were part of the
students of the Ghana School of Law admitted for the professional law course in
the 2015/2016 academic year. They took part in the June and September 2016
professional Law Examination that is the first and second semester examinations.
After the second semester examination, the results of both the first and second
semester examinations were published. Following the publication of the results
for the June and September 2016 Professional Law Examinations, the appellants
among other students failed in more than two subject papers. In consequence,
all those failed students including the appellants were required to repeat
their class. The appellants petitioned the respondent herein requesting that
their failed scripts should be submitted to an independent third party for
remarking. The respondent refused to accede to the appellants’ request,
explaining that all scripts including the appellants’ failed scripts had been
remarked already. Dissatisfied with the refusal by the respondent, the
appellants filed a motion on notice pursuant to Order 55 rule 1 of C.I. 47
seeking an order of mandamus “requiring the respondent herein to effect the
remarking of the papers of the applicants herein deemed to have been below the
pass mark”. The application was vehemently opposed by the respondent. After
hearing the application, the High Court on 26th April 2017 dismissed
the appellants’ application for mandamus on amongst other grounds that the
appellants had failed to establish the fundamental requirement in an
application for mandamus that there was a statutory public duty imposed on the
respondent to remark the failed scripts which the respondent had failed to do. Following
the decision of the High Court on 26th April 2017 dismissing the
application for mandamus, the appellants’ filed a Motion for a review of the
judgment pursuant to Order 42 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004
(C.I. 47). The ground upon which the application for review was brought by the
appellants was that they had after the decision of the Court on 26th
April 2017 discovered the Ghana School of Law Handbook (the Handbook) which
according to them conferred a statutory right in the appellants to have their
scripts remarked. The appellants further alleged that the Handbook was in the
knowledge of the respondent who had failed to bring it to the attention of the
High Court and that if the respondent had brought this to the attention of the
High Court, the Court would not have dismissed the appellants’ application for
mandamus. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After
hearing arguments from the parties, the High Court on 31st July 2017
dismissed the application for review. Dissatisfied with the ruling of the High
Court dated 31st July 2017, the appellants on 15th August
2017 appealed to this Court on the following grounds:<o:p></o:p>a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The ruling is against the weight of
evidence <o:p></o:p>b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
Honorable Court erred when it failed to recognise that Exhibit R1-Ghana School
of Law Handbook was issued by the respondent based on a Section of the Statute
establishing the respondent <o:p></o:p>c) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
Honorable Court again erred when it ruled that the applicant could not demand
the remarking by an independent body.<o:p></o:p>d)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Additional
grounds may be raised after obtaining the record of appeal.<o:p></o:p>The reliefs sought at the Court of Appeal are <o:p></o:p>a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
ruling of the trial Court be set aside<o:p></o:p>