February 26, 2009
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Chief Justice G. T. Wood, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court of Ghana, dismissed State Housing Company Ltds motion for certiorari seeking to quash a Fast Track High Court (No. 4) judgment of 20 March 2008 awarding GH 100,000 to Dinah Koranten Amoako. The High Court had earlier ruled on 25 October 2007 that Amoakos dismissal was wrongful, expressly suspending the final award pending further evidence. When the case resumed on 6 February 2008, State Housings counsel stated they would not participate further; the trial judge then obtained information at the bar and issued the damages award. The Supreme Court held the certiorari motion was one day out of time under Rule 62, rejected the audi alteram partem argument because State Housing refused to be heard, and concluded the High Court judge was not functus officio since the October ruling was interlocutory. The application was dismissed in limine.
R U L I N G
WOOD,(MRS) CJ:-
In this motion to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this honourable court, the applicant prays for an order of certiorari directed at the Automated/Fast Track High Court (No 4), presided over by Her Ladyship, Mrs. Irismay Brown. The purpose is to bring up to this court and to have quashed the judgment of that court dated 20th March, 2008, granting GHC100, 000.00 to the Plaintiff (Interested Party herein) without notice to the Defendant.
The facts which triggered the present application are not complex. On the 25th day of October 2007, the learned trial judge sitting in the Fast Track High Court 4 delivered herself in the case of
Dinah Koranten Amoako Plaintiff
Vs
State Housing Company Ltd Defendant.
as follows:
“The verdict of the court is that the dismissal of Plaintiff was motivated by factors other than the alleged misconduct of the Plaintiff and therefore wrongful. The behaviour of management gives credence to the allegation by Plaintiff that she had been harassed, persecuted and treated in a discriminatory fashion by management in respect of the purchase of her house. She has led evidence to show that officers of lower designations had benefited from both the land and house purchase concessions offered by the Company.
The Court has taken judicial notice of the frantic attempts made by management to evict Plaintiff and her family from the said accommodation soon after the institution of this suit and intends to take this into account in the award of damages which in any case plaintiff is deemed to be entitled to as a result of the finding by the court, that the purported termination of Plaintiff’s employment was wrongful.
Apart from being allowed to purchase her house, Plaintiff is seeking to be reinstated and the award of all benefits she is entitled to or alternatively for an award of damages. Since the Court is not versed with the current state of affairs, the final award of the court, will be suspended pending further evidence :”( Emphasis ours)
Clearly dissatisfied with this decision, the applicant, acting through his counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal on the 20th of December 2007. On the 6th February 2008, when the matter came up before the trial judge for further hearing as she had directed at the previous hearing, the applicant refused, as he was legally and perfectly entitled to do; to participate in the proceedings, as the record of the day clearly reveals. It reads thus:
“By Court: The matter befor