SOLOMON N.A QUARTEY & OTHERS vs. YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AGENCY [2019]DLHC10336

Date	2019-06-14
Suit No.	SUIT NO.IL/0079/2017
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10336

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA JULIANA AIKINS

COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF: MR SAMSON LARDY ANYENINI

COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT: MR KISSI AGYEBENG

[2019]DLHC10336
																																						<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" >SOLOMON N.A QUARTEY &amp;
OTHERS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AGENCY<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>COUNSEL FOR
THE PLAINTIFF: MR SAMSON LARDY ANYENINI<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">COUNSEL
FOR THE DEFENDANT: MR KISSI AGYEBENG &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HER
LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA JULIANA AIKINS<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;THE
DECISION<o:p></o:p>This Court has read the written submissions
of both the plaintiffs and defendant and it is of the opinion that the case of
the plaintiffs is unmeritorious and so same should be dismissed. The reasons of
the Court for coming to the above conclusion are set out in this judgment.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;THE
LAW/RULE<o:p></o:p>It is provided by Order 33 rules 3 and 5 of
the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, as follows:-<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “3. The Court may order any question or
issue &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; arising in any cause or matter whether of fact or &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; law, or partly of fact and partly of
law, and raised &nbsp;&nbsp; by the pleadings to be
tried before, at or after the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; trial
of the cause or matter and may give directions as
to the manner in which the question or issue shall &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; be stated”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “5. Where it appears to the Court that the
decision &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of any question or issue
arising in any cause or &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; matter
and tried separately from the main cause or &nbsp; matter
substantially disposes of the cause or matter &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; or
renders trial of the main cause or matter &nbsp; unnecessary,
it may dismiss the cause or matter or &nbsp; make
such other order or give such judgment as may &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; be
just”. &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>It is with regard to these rules as a guide
that this Court granted the prayer of the Counsel for plaintiff that the first
and second issues raised in the plaintiffs’ application for directions be set
down for determination by way of written legal arguments since a determination
of these two issues will substantially dispose of most of the issues in
contention between the Parties herein, and also because of the fact that there
was enough on the record by way of affidavit evidence and attached exhibits and
filed documents that could easily assist the Court in determining the matter by
way of legal argument. It is important at this stage, before discussing the
said two issues, to give the background to this present case.<o:p></o:p>RELIEFS
SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF<o:p></o:p>The plaintiffs originally commenced this
action on the 27th June, 2017 against two defendants namely the
Youth Employment Agency and the Attorney General. On the 27th of
July, 2017, this Court, upon an application by the second defendant, struck out
the name of the second defendant on the ground of misjoinder. Subsequently, the
Writ of Summons was amended a couple of times with the final amendment being
effected on the 11th of August, 2017.<o:p></o:p>The reliefs being sought by the plaintiffs
against the defendant herein are as follows:-<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A
declaration that defendant’s complained actions as contained in the letters of
17th and 29th of March, 2017 purporting to order
plaintiffs to ‘proceed on leave’ and report later for further directives are in
breach of due process and unlawful.<o:p></o:p>2.