DO II EMMANUEL QUAYE VS GHANA NATIONAL FIRE SERVICE COUNCIL & ANOR
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP GIFTY AGYEI ADDO, J. A
Areas of Law
- Human rights Law
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure
- Administrative Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
On 6 November 2014, an Applicant invoked Article 33 of the 1992 Constitution to enforce fundamental rights after the Ghana National Fire Service Council withdrew a promotion from DO II to DO III. The motion sought certiorari, declarations, damages, and compensation. The Attorney General, named as second Respondent, moved to be non-suited, asserting that under Order 67 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, C.I. 47, only notice to the Attorney General is required and only the alleged violator should be a party. The Applicant responded that the Ghana National Fire Service, established by Act 537 and part of the public service under Article 190, is not autonomous and lacks capacity to sue or be sued, making the State vicariously liable. The court agreed, relying on Article 88(5), which requires civil proceedings against the State to be instituted against the Attorney General. Distinguishing Order 67s service requirement from party status, the court dismissed the non-suit motion and made no order as to costs.
The Applicant/Respondent herein on 6th November, 2014, filed a motion on notice, pursuant to Article 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana 1992, for the enforcement of his human rights against the Respondents for the following reliefs: (1) An order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Ghana National Fire Service Council to withdraw Applicant’s promotion from the rank of DO II to DO III with all its ancillary directives.
A declaration that the withdrawal of Applicant’s promotion from the rank of DO III by virtue of a letter dated 17th October, 2014 without following properly laid down procedure in the Fire Service Disciplinary Regulations, 2003(L. I. 1725) is illegal, unlawful, null, void and of any no effect and also against his fundamental human rights enshrined in the 1992 Constitution.
An order directed at the GNFS acting through the 1st Respondent to compensate Applicant with a reasonable sum of money for unlawful withdrawal of Applicant’s promotion from DO II to DO III.
Damages for unlawful withdrawal of Applicant’s promotion from DO II to DO III, embarrassment and public ridicule that visited the Applicant by virtue of an unlawful act of withdrawal of his promotion.
Any other order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit in accordance with the enforcement of fundamental human rights of the Applicant.
The Application was followed up with a supplementary and further supplementary affidavit filed on 17th February, 2015, and 2nd February, 2016, respectively, in support of the Application.
On 2nd February, 2016, the first Respondent filed an affidavit in answer to the Application.
On 18th January, 2016, the second Respondent by a motion on notice sought to be non- suited.
Counsel for the second Respondent/Applicant argued that on the totality of Order 67 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1947, C. I. 47 and especially with regard to Applications based on alleged human rights violations, it is only the person directly in alleged violation of the Applicant’s human rights who should be made a party to the suit.
That the Attorney General, being the principal legal advisor to state institutions shall be notified of the Application, in accordance with Order 67 Rule 3 of C. I. 47. That Order 67 does not provide that the Attorney General be made a party to the suit.
Counsel for the Applicant/Respondent, on point of law, countered the above submissions as follows: That per Article 190 of the Constitution of the Republ