MICHAEL TETTEH ACHIM vs. LINCOLN COMMUNITY SCHOOL [2019]DLHC10303

Date	2019-03-13
Suit No.	SUIT №. IL/0040/18
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10303

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS.)

[2019]DLHC10303
																																						<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" >MICHAEL TETTEH ACHIM<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>LINCOLN COMMUNITY SCHOOL<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<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="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
tab-stops:right 468.0pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT №. IL/0040/18&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: 13TH 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;">

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS
(MRS.)<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;MOTION ON NOTICE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS<o:p></o:p>Ruling<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff/applicant, per this instant application has requested this Court for
an order directed at the defendant/respondent to produce certain documents for
the inspection of the plaintiff and to enable the plaintiff make copies of the
said documents.<o:p></o:p>In
his supporting affidavit to the present application, the plaintiff/applicant deposed
that the documents which are about eleven in number are in the custody of the
defendant/respondent and that they relate to the core issues of the substantive
suit regarding the unfair termination of the plaintiff’s employment with the
defendant and therefore the respondent must be compelled by this Court to
produce the said documents for the inspection of the plaintiff and for him to
make copies thereof.<o:p></o:p>The
defendant/respondent has opposed this application on the ground that the
documents requested for by the applicant are not relevant for the determination
of the substantive case which essentially is about the fairness or otherwise of
the termination of the plaintiff’s employment with the defendant/respondent.
The defendant/respondent has also claimed that the documents are privilege
information which should not be put in the public domain and thus requested the
Court to refuse the request of the applicant.<o:p></o:p>The
Court has considered the affidavits of both parties and the submissions of both
counsel and it has also carefully perused the list of the documents which the
plaintiff seeks production of and the Court has also, in chambers, looked at
the documents sought to be produced and it is of the opinion that the said
documents are of no relevance to the plaintiff’s case since they are
essentially about tax matters of the defendant. The Court therefore refuses the
application of the plaintiff/applicant.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(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;&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;</main>