GORDON LOTSU VS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & ANOR
April 28, 2017
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP, JUSTICE GIFTY AGYEI ADDO
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
April 28, 2017
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice Gifty Agyei Addo of the Ghana High Court dismissed an application for mandamus by an Applicant who claimed a United Kingdom judgment of about £3.741 billion against the British government and sought to compel CHRAJ to furnish documents allegedly obtained from the British Commonwealth. The Applicant said CHRAJ verbally indicated such information existed and that he delivered a lawyer’s letter on 5 February 2016 requesting it but received no acknowledgment or reply. The Court held the application was out of time under Order 55 rule 3(1) of C.I. 47, and, even if timely, mandamus would not issue because neither the Data Protection Act 2012 nor Articles 218 and 219 of the 1992 Constitution or Act 456 impose a statutory public duty on CHRAJ to obtain or relay foreign-related information. Article 219 also restricts CHRAJ from investigating intergovernmental matters. The application was dismissed with GH¢2,000 costs in favor of CHRAJ.
The Applicant on 8th December, 2016, instituted the present action for a writ of Mandamus to issue against the Respondent, ordering it to perform a public duty pursuant to the Data Protection Act 2012. From his 66 paragraphed affidavit in support of the application as well as his statement of case and the submissions of Applicant Counsel at the hearing of the application, the Applicant’s case is as follows: That he has obtained judgment in the United Kingdom for the sum of Three Billion, Seven Hundred and forty-one million pound sterling (£3. 741) against the British government against whom he has failed to execute the said judgment through his personal efforts.
That among the institutions in Ghana the Applicant contacted to assist him to enforce the said judgment is the Respondent.
According to the Applicant, in the in the course of dealing with the Respondent, the Respondent had verbally intimated to him that it had obtained some information through correspondence with the British Commonwealth, which information the Applicant deems may be pertinent to advance his case against the British Government.
It is the Applicant’s case that in spite of his demand from the Respondent to make available to him the said information, indicated to him by the Respondent as having been obtained from the British Commonwealth, the Respondent has failed to make same available to him.
Hence, the Applicant is in this Court asking that the Respondent be compelled by an order of mandamus to make the said documents available to him.
The Respondent has resisted the application stating that after it had been contacted for the performance of the task for which the Applicant is in Court, it had communicated to the Applicant by a letter stating that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the issues set forth before it by the Applicant way back in 2013. The Respondent in support of this assertion attached to its affidavit in answer Exhibit ‘A’, the said letter.
It is to be noted that whilst Exhibit ‘A’ dates back to 2013, the issues as presented to this Court by the Applicant for which an order of Mandamus is to be issued are within the year 2014. Clearly therefore, the affidavit in answer of the Respondent does not address the Applicant’s case for the year 2014. Be that as it may, the issue which is pertinent for determination by this Court in order for an order of mandamus to lie is whether the Applicant in this case has satisfied the requirements for the grant of an order of mand