THE REPUBLIC vs. GHANA EDUCATION SERVICE AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL EX PARTE: FRANK ASAMANY AND 91 OTHER HEAD TEACHERS [2020]DLHC8917

THE REPUBLIC vs. GHANA EDUCATION SERVICE AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL EX PARTE: FR... [2020]DLHC8917

Date	2020-05-19
Suit No.	SUIT NO. GJ/0317/2020
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC8917

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE JENNIFER ABENA DADZIE

JUSTICE SREM SAI ESQ. OF ARCHBRIDGE SOLICITORS ACCRA COUNSEL FOR APPLICANTS

1ST RESPONDENT GHANA EDUCATION SERVICE NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ACCRA.

STELLA BADU ESQ. CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY FOR ATTORNEY-GENERAL ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT ACCRA COUNSEL FOR 1ST RESPONDENT

[2020]DLHC8917
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA EDUCATION SERVICE (1ST
RESPONDENT) AND THE
ATTORNEY-GENERAL (2ND RESPONDENT) EX PARTE: FRANK ASAMANY AND 91 OTHER HEAD TEACHERS&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (OTHER
APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE SREM SAI, ESQ., OF ARCHBRIDGE SOLICITORS, ACCRA,
COUNSEL FOR APPLICANTS<o:p></o:p>1ST RESPONDENT, GHANA EDUCATION SERVICE,
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS, ACCRA.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:-36.0pt">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;tab-stops:298.8pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">STELLA
BADU, ESQ., CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY FOR ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S
DEPARTMENT, ACCRA, COUNSEL FOR 1ST RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HER LADYSHIP
JUSTICE JENNIFER ABENA DADZIE<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 0cm 1.0pt 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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">This Court has been
called upon to pronounce on the decisions of and/or acts undertaken by a Department
of the Government, which the Applicants herein claim resulted in a variation of
their conditions of service to their disadvantage, when they had not been given
a fair hearing, and also unfairly barring them from applying for newly
advertised positions such that the said actions or decisions should be subject
to the Judicial Review powers of the Court in the form of Orders of certiorari
and mandamus and the Applicants be compensated in damages.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The facts of this case, largely, are not in controversy.&nbsp; The Applicants, about ninety-two (92) of them,
are employees of the Ghana Education Service (hereafter referred to as “GES/the
Service”) and until September 9, 2019, worked under the supervision of the Ga
West Municipality, now divided into Ga West and Ga North Municipalities as
headmasters of several public basic schools.&nbsp;
The GES, 1st Respondent herein, is established under the Ghana Education Service Act, 1995 (Act
506) with a duty, to, among others, provide and oversee basic education,
senior secondary education, technical education and special education. &nbsp;[See section
3 thereof.] &nbsp;The 2nd
Respondent, the Attorney General, is a nominal Defendant charged by law with
the representation of the 1st Respondent in these legal proceedings.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">In or around July,
2019, certain headmasters, including the Applicants, charged their pupils various
sums of money for procuring printing of examination papers and other
examination materials contrary to GES directives.&nbsp; These sums were subsequently refunded to the
parents of the pupils upon the intervention of the GES.&nbsp; This fact notwithstanding, the Deputy
Director of the GES directed the supervising municipal directors to take
appropriate disciplinary actions against the said headmasters for charging the
unapproved fees.&nbsp; Thereafter, it appears the
headmasters who were involved in the charging of the unauthorised fees were, by
letters issued by the Municipal Directors, reassigned from their headmaster
positions to classrooms as teachers.&nbsp; The
affected head teachers, attributing their reassignment to their wrongful act of
charging the unapproved fees, through a representative group, met with,
acknowledged their wrongful actions and <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">apologised<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"> to their Municipal Director
for their actions and also asked that the decision to repost them be
rescinded.&nbsp; This apology and request for
a recession of the decision was further expressed by a letter written,
purportedly on behalf of the group, by the 19th and 50th
Applicants herein.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>