Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
1. BACKGROUND The originating motion for the enforcement of Fundamental Human Rights has been filed on 24-04-2018, pursuant to Articles 23 and 33 (i) of the constitution and order 67 of C. I. 47/04. The facts in support can be found in the depositions of the Applicant, Frank Percy Sankah.
Respondent filed an affidavit in answer and a supplementary affidavit as well.
Bothsides have filed written legal submissions.
This action was not set down for hearing as required by rules of Court, namelyOrder 67 Rule 5 of C. I. 47/04. But from the reliefs indorsed, the matter in contention are descernible.
The reliefs are these: i. An order of certiorari to bring up and quash the suspension letter dated the 16th March, 2018 and the 12th April, 2018. ii.
An order of Mandamus compelling the Respondent to restore and pay the salary, benefits, arrears, allowances and all other entitlements due the Applicant.
A declaration that Applicant’s rights have been infringed upon by the 1st and 2nd Respondents and the police acting on the instructions of the 1st Respondent.
A declaration that the 1st Respondent did not comply with all or any of the obligations imposed on them by law before they issued the letters of suspension including the interdiction letter dated 12th April, 2018 written by the 1st Respondent and as such are null and void of no legal effect.
v. An order directed at the 1st and 2nd Respondents to re-instate the Applicant in line with the previous of the Human Resource Management Policy Service.
An order of prohibition against the 1st and 2nd Respondents, their agents and assigns from any further or future acts that violate the Human Rights and liberty of the Applicant.
The under listed are the issues in contention.
1. Whether or not Respondents have complied with the law and employment contract between the state and the Applicant as it purport to remove him from his job 2. Whether or not the rights of Applicant have been violated by the actions of the Respondents.
3. Whether or not the Applicant is entitled to the reliefs, he is seeking.
The Applicant carries the onus of proof on issues ‘2’ and ‘3’, on whether Applicant’s rights have been violated and whether he is entitled to remedies indorsed in this action.
On the preponderance of the probabilities, Applicant is obligated to prove these issues.
On the other hand, Respondents have to prove that, they have complied with the law and that acts that amount to misconduct have been identified and esta