GABRIEL AHIADORME OKRONIPA (PLAINTIFF) vs. TAKORADI TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY (DEFENDANT) [2019]DLHC7042

GABRIEL AHIADORME OKRONIPA (PLAINTIFF) vs. TAKORADI TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY (DEFEND... [2019]DLHC7042

Date	2019-03-15
Suit No.	SUIT NO. E2/68/18
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7042

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI – FRIMPONG J.

SAMUEL E.ABAKAH ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF

KOFI DIABA ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2019]DLHC7042
																																						<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" >GABRIEL AHIADORME OKRONIPA<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>TAKORADI TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH
COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

SUIT
NO. E2/68/18 &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; &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;DATE: 15TH MARCH, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>SAMUEL
E.ABAKAH ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

KOFI DIABA ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI – FRIMPONG J.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="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:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>In 2016, the government of Ghana
passed the Technical University Act (Act 922) converting a number of
polytechnic institutions including the defendant herein into technical
universities. The defendant, prior to that had been established and operated
under the Polytechnics Act, 2007 (Act 745) and the statutes of 2008 made there under.<o:p></o:p>In September 2012, a Registrar was
appointed for the polytechnic under the existing law. Her tenure of office was
for 6 years beginning from 1st October 2012 renewable for another 6
years upon satisfactory performance.<o:p></o:p>While still serving the first term
of 6 years, the Act 922 came into force. The statutes made pursuant to section
26 of the Act fixed a new term of 4 years, renewable for another 4-year term
for the Registrar of the university.<o:p></o:p>Getting to the expiration of the
Registrar’s first term of 6 years, the defendant, of the thinking that the term
was ending caused to be published in the “Daily Graphic” newspaper vacancy for
the office of Registrar. The defendant went further to appoint a Search
Committee in accordance with the provisions of statutes 10(ii) and (iv) of 2016
for purposes of appointing a Registrar.<o:p></o:p>According to the defendant, its
attention was subsequently drawn to the fact that constituting a Search
Committee and publishing the vacancy were in error as it was contrary to the
contract it had with the substantive Registrar as well as the relevant laws and
regulations. In the event, the search Committee was dissolved and the
publication withdrawn. In place of that, an Ad hoc Committee was set up to
assess the performance of the substantive Registrar for her re- appointment.
Meanwhile the plaintiff, a Deputy Registrar for the defendant had upon the
publication of the vacancy applied for the position. Aggrieved by the turn of
events, the plaintiff came to sue in this court. The reliefs he seeks are as
follows:<o:p></o:p>1.A declaration that the setting up
of an Ad-hoc Committee by the University Council to assess the re-appointment
of the Registrar of TTU sins against the Statutes 10(ii) and (vi) of the
Takoradi Technical University (TTU) statutes, 2016<o:p></o:p>2.A declaration that the vacancy
about to occur for the office of the Registrar for TTU is one of appointment
and not re-appointment.<o:p></o:p>3.An order to dissolve the Ad-hoc
Committee set up by the TTU Council for the evaluation of the re-appointment of
the Registrar.<o:p></o:p>4. An order to reconstitute the
Search Committee for an appointment of a Registrar<o:p></o:p>5.An order to compel the Search
Committee to vet the plaintiff’s application for the office of Registrar.<o:p></o:p>The case pleaded for the plaintiff summing
it up is that upon the coming into effect of the Act 922 and the TTU statutes
of 2016, the term of the substantive Registrar should have ended and not be
permitted to run for 6 years. Again the second re-appointment term of 6 years
had not accrued to the Registrar. Therefore, the formation of the Ad-hoc
Committee by the defendant for the re-appointment of the Registrar contravenes
the provisions of Act 922 and the statutes of 2016. The Search Committee set up
was a lawful one and its dissolution was rather erroneous. The Committee ought
to be re-constituted to continue with its mandate to vet and appoint a
Registrar.<o:p></o:p>The defendant disagrees with the position
taken by the plaintiff. Its pleaded case is that under the contract it had with
the substantive Registrar her appointment took effect on 1st October
2012. And after the first term, it only had to evaluate her performance for
re-appointment for the second term the purpose for which it set up the Ad-hoc
Committee.<o:p></o:p>At the close of pleadings, the
following issues were set down for trial:<o:p></o:p>i) Whether or not the appointment of
the Ad-hoc Committee by the University Council to assess the re-appointment of
the Registrar of TTU sins against the statute 10(ii) and (vi) of the TTU
statutes of 2016.<o:p></o:p>ii) Whether or not the vacant office
of the Registrar for TTU is one of appointment and not reappointment.<o:p></o:p>iii) Whether or not the Ad-hoc
Committee set up by the TTU Council for evaluation of the re-appointment of the
Registrar should be dissolved.<o:p></o:p>iv) Whether or not the Search
Committee for an appointment of a Registrar be reconstituted.<o:p></o:p>v) Whether or not constituting a
Search Committee and publishing the vacancy in the office of the Registrar was
in error.<o:p></o:p>