DR. RICHARD AKPLOTSYI v. HO TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY, PROF. BEN QUARSHIE HONYENUGA AND ATTORNEY GENERAL

1 Background

The 1st Respondent herein is a tertiary educational institution of higher learning

and a body corporate per the Technical Universities Act, 2016 s. 1(2). It used to be

a Polytechnic. 2nd Respondent, at all material times, is its Vice-Chancellor. The

applicant until his one-year suspension by 1st Respondent per a letter dated 22 June

2022 (Exhibit Z2) effective 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023 was a senior lecturer with 1st

Respondent. The suspension seems to be the cause of the action.

The applicant claims that arising from a series of misunderstanding engagements

with Respondents, the latter had vindictively denied him appointments to

available positions he is duly qualified and entitled to in the 1st Respondent

institution but the 1st Respondent has resorted to renewing his teaching

appointments for a shorter one-year term. Besides, Applicant claims to have been

subjected to charges and invitations to disciplinary committees, and that his

petitions and appeals to these bodies including committees in charge of

promotions and renewal of teaching appointments yielded no positive response

but rather 2nd Respondent in his letter dated 22 June 2022 ultimately suspended

him for one year without pay effective July 1, 2022, to 30 June 2023.

Citing a litany of other administrative acts of the Respondents that he claims are

grossly actuated by malice, vindictiveness, arbitrariness and gross violation of his

fundamental human rights, the Applicant on 29 July 2022 per an originating

motion pursuant to article 33 of the Constitution, 1992 and under the High Court

(Civil Procedure) Rules 2005, (C.I. 47) Order 67, as well as under the court’s

inherent jurisdiction commenced this action for grant of the following reliefs:

i Declaration as void, the purported notice of suspension letter written

by the respondents dated 22nd June, 2022 to the applicant.

ii A declaration that the respondents’ conduct towards the applicant is

characterized by ill faith, capriciousness and arbitrariness and gross

violation of the petitioner’s human rights.

iii An order directed at the respondents to reinstate the applicant to his

original position as a senior lecturer of the Ho Technical University.

iv By requesting the applicant to re-apply for renewal of his teaching

contract which was not applicable to the status of the applicant as a

senior lecturer (PhD), the respondent was acting contrary to the

terms and conditions affecting the status of the ap