ERIC FROKU TETTEH & ORS VS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & ANOR
April 4, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP, JUSTICE NICHOLAS M. C. ABODAKPI (J)
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure
April 4, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The High Court (per Justice Nicholas M. C. Abodakpi) considered an application by newly qualified teachers—Eric Froku Tetteh, Lydia Owusuaa, Freeman Yeboah, and others—seeking judicial review to quash the National Teaching Council’s licensure examination policy. The applicants, having completed colleges of education and passed the University of Cape Coast’s professional examination, contended the licensure scheme lacked a Legislative Instrument under Article 11(7), violated transitional requirements under Act 778, and discriminated against the 2017/2018 cohort. The respondents argued NTC’s statutory mandate under Act 778 Sections 9 and 10 includes licensing and registration, and Section 29’s regulations list does not require a Legislative Instrument for licensing. The Court applied expressio unius to Section 29 and read Section 31(4) as authorizing administrative arrangements for licensing, found the 2018 rollout rational (not discriminatory), and held Act 778 impliedly superseded conflicting aspects of Act 506. Concluding that the decision was intra vires, reasonable, and procedurally proper, the Court dismissed the application and denied certiorari.
1. BACKGROUND In this application for judicial review, applicants are asking for an order to quash the decision of the National Teaching Council on the implementation of its supposed National Teachers’ Standard for Ghana Guidelines and the Guidelines and Procedure for a Licensure Examination for New Teachers.
The affidavit in support has been deposed to by Elikplim Agbemava, Counsel for applicants.
There are Exhibits annexed, namely: a) EXHIBIT “EFT 1” GES, Policy Frame Work Document.
b) EXHIBIT “EFT 2” National Teachers’ Standard Guidelines.
c) EXHIBIT ‘EFT 3’ A letter authored by National Teaching Council.
The application has been filed on 10-09-2018. And on 09-11-2018, the statement of case in support of the application was filed.
On the other hand, in the affidavit filed on 05-11-2018, the opposition to the application could be found.
And on 04-01-2019, Respondent also filed a statement of case.
In Order 55 Rule 6(2) of the High Court Civil Procedure Rule 2004, C. I. 47 the Applicants should have filed their statement of case fourteen (14) days after filing the application.
The legal consequence for failure to comply with the rule cited supra was not activated.
In the meantime a motion for an order of injunction and the propriety of making the National Teachers’ Council, a second respondent, had to be resolved.
Thus, the application was heard after the National Teachers’ Council had been struck out as a party.
And the various processes filed on both sides were regularized by the Court presently constituted, with Applicants and the Attorney General as the parties.
However, it is worth noting that the motion paper was silent on which of the Writs or exact order of Judicial Review Applicants are seeking.
The title of the application also has not been made in conformity with the practice and procedure known in Judicial Review applications.
By the facts of this case the appropriate title should be: THE REPUBLIC VRS. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL - RESPONDENT EX PARTE, ERIC FROKU TETTEH & 3 ORS - APPLICANTS MINISTRY OF EDUCATION - INTERESTED(NATIONAL TEACHING COUNCIL) PARTY 2. LEGAL FRAME WORK OF JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATIONS The power of judicial review invested in the High Court, could be found in ARTICLES 23 and 141 of the Constitution.
ARTICLE 23 of the 1992 Constitution provides: “Administrative bodies and administrative officials shall act, fairly and reasonably and comply with requirements imposed on them by law and persons aggrieved by the exe