AUGUSTINE SAAKUR-KARBO vs. TEACHERS AND EDUCATIONAL WORKERS UNION & ORS. [2019]DLHC10186

Date	2019-06-17
Suit No.	SUIT №. IL/0089/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10186

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS.)

1ST DEFENDANT REPRESENTED BY AMBROSE YAW KWADZODZA 2ND AND 3RD DEFENDANTS ABSENT BUT REPRESENTED BY BISMARK ANABA AKANDI

KOREWA AHWOI HOLDING BRIEF FOR SOLOMON QUANDZIE

COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF PRESENT

MR LIMANN A. MOHAMMED WITH STEPHEN OPOKU NSIAH HOLDING BRIEF FOR EMMANUEL KOFI DARKO

COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS PRESENT

[2019]DLHC10186
																																						<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" >AUGUSTINE SAAKUR-KARBO<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>TEACHERS AND EDUCATIONAL
WORKERS UNION &amp; ORS.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<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>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>1ST
DEFENDANT REPRESENTED BY AMBROSE YAW KWADZODZA<o:p></o:p>2ND
AND 3RD DEFENDANTS ABSENT BUT REPRESENTED BY BISMARK ANABA AKANDI<o:p></o:p>KOREWA
AHWOI HOLDING BRIEF FOR SOLOMON QUANDZIE, COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF PRESENT<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;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">MR LIMANN A. MOHAMMED WITH STEPHEN
OPOKU NSIAH HOLDING BRIEF FOR EMMANUEL KOFI DARKO, COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS
PRESENT<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;The plaintiff/applicant per this
present application brought under Order
25 rule 1 of C.I. 47, is
requesting the Court for an order of injunction restraining the defendants/respondents
from organising, calling for, planning and /or taking part in any Regional or
National Conference of the 1st Defendant pending the determination
of the substantive matter on its merits.<o:p></o:p>The reasons of the plaintiff for this
request is that the defendants have clearly shown by their conduct, and
attitude that they wish to oust the plaintiff from his position as General
Secretary of the 1st Defendant by unlawful and unconstitutional
means.&nbsp; He says he was unlawfully
suspended by the defendants without any just cause and without due regard to
the established tenets and principles governing the 1st defendant
union and that his suspension is part of a grant scheme or design to
permanently oust him from his position as General Secretary because the
defendants plan to use his enforced absence from the upcoming regional and national
delegates conferences between the 19th May and the end of June, 2019
to orchestrate his eventual and final dismissal from his position aforesaid.<o:p></o:p>The defendants are opposed to this
application and have stated that the plaintiff was lawfully suspended by the
National Executive Council of the 1st respondent pending
investigations by a committee lawfully constituted by the National Executive
Council of the 1st defendant to look into certain allegations of
misconduct levelled against the plaintiff/applicant.<o:p></o:p>The background to this application is
that the plaintiff, on the 10th day of May, 2019, issued a writ
against the defendants herein for five reliefs among which are an order for a
declaration that the suspension of the plaintiff by the 1st
defendant is wrongful, illegal and a flagrant and unwarranted breach of the
plaintiff’s fundamental human right as enshrined in the 1992 constitution; an order compelling the defendants to lift the
said suspension and an order restraining the defendants from organising,
calling for, planning, and/or taking part in any regional or national
conference of the 1st&nbsp; defendant
until the final determination of the suit.<o:p></o:p>Both parties in their statements of
case attached to their respective affidavits talked about the fact that the
grant of an interlocutory injunction is a discretionary remedy by the Court.
They both agree that the fundamental principles in the grant of interlocutory injunction
and which have been held by our Superior Courts time without number are that
the applicant must be able to demonstrate that he/she has a legal right in law
or in equity which has to be protected by the maintenance of the status quo
ante pending the final determination of the substantive matter on its merits and
also that it is just and/or convenient for the Court to grant the injunction
pending the final determination of the matter and finally whether the grant
would cause serious hardship to the other party and whether monetary
compensation would not be adequate for the party who is refused the remedy in
case it turns out in the end that that party was entitled to the grant after
all.<o:p></o:p>Both parties have cited a plethora of
cases in their respective submissions among which are Pontney vs. Doegah (1987-88) 1 GLR 111 C.A., 18th July Ltd.
Vs Yehans International Ltd. [2012] 1 SCGLR 167 and Owusu vs. Owusu Ansah
[2007-2008] SCGLR 870.<o:p></o:p>This </main>