NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGISTERED MIDWIVES, GHANA vs. NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION AND GHANA ASSOCIATION OF REGISTERED NURSES & MIDWIVES ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL SECRETARIAT, ACCRA [2019]DLHC10309

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGISTERED MIDWIVES, GHANA vs. NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSI... [2019]DLHC10309

Date	2019-10-08
Suit No.	SUIT NO. IL/0038/2018
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10309

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS).

1ST DEFENDANT REPRESENTED BY MR. LEONARD KUMANGTUM COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF ABSENT

EFFIBA AMIHERE COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT PRESENT

[2019]DLHC10309
																																						<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" >NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGISTERED MIDWIVES, GHANA (PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION AND GHANA ASSOCIATION OF REGISTERED NURSES
&amp; MIDWIVES ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL SECRETARIAT, ACCRA<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS)<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;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. IL/0038/2018&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;DATE:
8TH OCTOBER, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>1ST
DEFENDANT REPRESENTED BY MR. LEONARD KUMANGTUM<o:p></o:p>COUNSEL
FOR PLAINTIFF ABSENT<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">EFFIBA AMIHERE, COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT PRESENT<o:p></o:p>

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

</div>&nbsp;RULING ON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW <o:p></o:p>Order 42 rule 1(1) of the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 2004 provides as follows:-<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;
1(1)&nbsp;&nbsp; “A person who is aggrieved<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;(a) by a judgment or order from which an
appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;been preferred,
or <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (b)
by a judgment or order from which no appeal is allowed, <o:p></o:p>may upon the discovery of new and
important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was
not within that person’s knowledge or could not be produced by that person at
the time when the judgment was given or the order made, or on account of some
mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient
reason, apply for a review of the judgment or the order.”<o:p></o:p>The present application for an order of
review of the ruling of this Court dated the 4th of July, 2019 is
brought under the above quoted rule of C.I. 47. The Court in its ruling dated 4th
July, 2019 granted an application by the first defendant, now respondent in
this present application, to set aside the plaintiff’s writ of summons on the
ground that the plaintiff lacked the capacity to bring its action against the
first defendant (the National Labour Commission) because the plaintiff never
appeared before the first defendant.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff/applicant, obviously
aggrieved by this ruling, has brought the present application before the Court,
requesting the Court to review its order setting aside the plaintiffs writ
because the record shows clearly that the plaintiff/applicant was a party which
appeared before the first defendant (National Labour Commission) and that even the
first defendant gave a ruling against the plaintiff after a consideration of
the matters before the first defendant. And therefore it was wrong for this Court
to have held that the plaintiff/applicant never appeared before the first
defendant and as such it lacked the capacity to sue the first defendant. It is
also the submission of the plaintiff/applicant that assuming without admitting
that the plaintiff/applicant never appeared before the first defendant, that
failure to do so did not rob the plaintiff of capacity to commence an action
against the first defendant if the plaintiff is aggrieved with any decision of
the first defendant against the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>The record before this Court shows that
the defendants, especially the first, were served with the present application
but none of them responded to same. The first defendant who is the actual
respondent in this present application never bothered to file an affidavit in
opposition and it also never appeared in Court to respond to the application
when same was moved though hearing notices were served on it. <o:p></o:p>This Court has considered the affidavit
of the plaintiff/applicant and has carefully perused all the annexed exhibits
and all the previous record of proceedings and the Court is of the opinion that
this present application should be granted because the Court agrees with the
submissions of counsel for the applicant that the order of this Court setting
aside the plaintiff’s writ against the first defendant was given in error since
the record especially Exhibit “NLC 3A” shows that the plaintiff/applicant
herein did indeed appear before the first defendant. The said Exhibit ‘NLC 3A”
was originally attached to the first defendant’s application for an order to
set aside the plaintiff’s writ of summons which was filed on the 12th
of June, 2019. Exhibit</main>