FREDERICK DJUKU NARTEY vs. GHANA MUSEUM & MONUMENTS BOARD [2019]DLHC10268

Date	2019-03-05
Suit No.	SUIT NO. INDL/47/14
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10268

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS).

[2019]DLHC10268
																																						<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" >FREDERICK DJUKU NARTEY<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA MUSEUM &amp; MONUMENTS BOARD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<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;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;tab-stops:120.4pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. INDL/47/14&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: 5TH MARCH 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<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;tab-stops:120.4pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">HER
LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS).<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;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>&nbsp;The plaintiff/applicant, per the present
application, has requested the Court to issue an order of mandamus directed at
the Executive Secretary of the defendant/respondent to comply with a directive
from the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture to reinstate the plaintiff/applicant
in the defendant/respondent’s organisation because the termination of the
plaintiff’s appointment was without the approval the defendant/respondent’s
Board of Directors. The said directive from the Minister is attached to the
plaintiff’s application as Exhibit ‘MA1’.<o:p></o:p>The defendant/respondent has opposed
this application, saying that the plaintiff/applicant’s appointment with the
defendant/respondent was terminated the second time on 15th April,
2013 with the approval of the defendant/respondent’s Board of Directors and that
Exhibit ‘MA1’ relates to the first termination of the plaintiff’s appointment. <o:p></o:p>Counsel for the respondent said that
the applicant herein was reinstated on the 5th of December, 2011 after
a directive from the National Labour Commission but that his appointment was
terminated the second time on 15th April, 2013 after he had
misconducted himself.<o:p></o:p>This Court has carefully considered the
affidavits of both parties, their statements of case and all their annexures
and has also considered the oral submissions of both counsel and it is of the
opinion that the present application is unmeritorious and should not be
granted.<o:p></o:p>Since the trial in the substantive
matter is already in progress, same will be continued to enable the Court
determine the issues in controversy completely and effectively. The present
application is thus dismissed. No cost awarded against the plaintiff/applicant.<o:p></o:p>(SGD)<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS
(MRS)<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;

&nbsp;</main>