2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal (per Justice Angelina M. Domakyaareh, J.A.) dismissed Michael Darko’s appeal from the High Court’s refusal of his constitutional application against the University of Cape Coast. Darko, an M.Phil student, had been dismissed following a Sexual Harassment Committee’s investigation into a complaint by Ms. Bridget Amoafo; he sought prohibition of further Committee action and certiorari to quash the dismissal. The appellate court held the dismissal was founded on the Amoafo complaint, with prior similar misconduct justifiably referenced as aggravating factors. It rejected semantic distinctions between “dismissal” and “expulsion,” finding UCC’s sanctions clause non-exhaustive and expulsion/dismissal permissible. The court concluded Darko had adequate notice and opportunities to be heard, and prohibition could not issue once the Committee’s work had concluded. New matters not raised below could not be introduced on appeal. All grounds failed; the High Court’s judgment was affirmed.
DOMAKYAAREH (MRS), J. A.
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, Cape Coast dated 21st April, 2015.
What culminated in this appeal began by an application by the Applicant/Appellant (herein after referred to as the Applicant) on 8th December, 2014, for redress under Article 33 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana against the Respondent/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent). The relevant portions of Article 33 are as follows: “33. Protection of Rights by the Court
(2) The High Court may, under clause (1) of this article, issue such directions or orders or writs including writs or orders in the nature of harbeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, and quo warranto as it may consider appropriate for the purposes of enforcing or securing the enforcement of any of the provisions on the fundamental human rights and freedoms to the protection of which the person concerned is entitled.
” The Applicant sought two orders, namely Prohibition against the Respondent requiring him “to refrain from belonging its Sexual Harassment Committee to take any further sittings or activities on the complaint against the Applicant:” and “An Order of Certiorari to quash the decision by the Respondent dismissing the Applicant.”
2. The Applicant, who was an M.Phil.
student of the Respondent University in the Botany and Environmental Science Department deposed in his Affidavit in Support of the Application that he was given a three-day written notice to appear before the Sexual Harassment Committee of the Respondent University upon a report submitted by the Guidance and Counselling Centre based on a complaint lodged with it by one Bridget Amoafo.
The Applicant accordingly met the Sexual Harassment Committee where he was told of the complaint and asked to give his version which he started but did not conclude following which the meeting was adjourned to a date to be communicated to him.
The Applicant deposed that during that adjournment he sought advice from a qualified lawyer who informed him that the procedure used by the Committee in the investigation of the complaint against him was unfair and biased.
The applicant’s further cas