REPUBLIC v. CENTRAL REGIONAL MINISTER AND ANOTHER; EX PARTE ACTION CONGRESS PARTY

JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE J.

When the applicants' motion came before the court on 17 March 1980, the outstanding reliefs sought were those of prohibition and mandamus; the relief for certiorari having been conditionally dismissed at the previous hearing. By their application for an order of prohibition, the court is invited to restrain the Regional Minister and the Deputy Regional Minister for the Central Region from distributing or selling essential commodities including outboard motors and cutlasses at the Central Regional and District Offices of the People's National Party or through Mr. Gustav Ackumey of Cape Coast, a staunch member of the People's National Party. They also pray for an order of mandamus to compel the Regional Minister and the Deputy Regional Minister to do the following acts:

"(a) to distribute and/or sell essential commodities including outboard motors and cutlasses only through the registered [p.530]commercial houses in Cape Coast and elsewhere in the Central Region;

(b) to publish the quantities of essential commodities including outboard motors and cutlasses so far received, the date of receipt, the warehouses in which they are kept, the persons to whom sales have been made, the persons who have conducted such sales and the mode of distribution and/or sales;

(c) to refer the matter to the police for prosecution; and

(d) to declare the source of the said outboard motors."

The Principal State Attorney has raised preliminary objections to this outstanding application. In regard to the prohibition sought, he has contended that the application can only be entertained where it is disclosed that both the Regional Minister and the Deputy Regional Minister (hereinafter to be referred to as the respondents) or either of them were exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions and, whilst sitting as a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, they have exceeded their jurisdiction. With regard to mandamus, it was argued that it will only lie where it is established that there is a legal duty imposed on the respondents which they have failed or refused to discharge. It was contended that the applicants' affidavits do not disclose either that the respondents were exercising a judicial function or that an enactment imposed a duty on them for the benefit of the applicants, such as that of selling essential commodities, which they have failed to carry out.

Counsel for the applicants fired his opening salvo to repel the objections raised with the