Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
BARTELS-KODWO, J.A:
INTRODUCTION :
This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court, (Human Rights Division) Accra
dated 23rd November 2020 refusing an application brought by the Applicant/Appellant
(hereinafter, ‚the Appellant‛) for the enforcement of fundamental human rights under
the 1992 Constitution.
BACKGROUND:
The factual premises leading to the matter in dispute are that on 11th June 2018 the
Appellant caused her solicitors to file at the registry of the High Court Human Rights
Division, a motion for the enforcement of human rights under Article 33 of the 1992
Constitution. On that motion paper, the Appellant sought various declarations from
the High Court, including declarations to the effect that;
1. The Appellant was discriminated against on grounds of her physical disability
by the Respondent/Respondent (hereinafter, the Respondent).
2. That the Appellant’s right to human dignity had been violated by the
Respondent
The Appellant also sought declarations to the effect that there existed a binding legal
contract between the parties which was breached by the Respondent.
The grounds for the motion as far as can be surmised from the affidavit in support of
the motion were as follows;
1. That the Respondent refused to permit her to board a Kumasi bound flight on
May 5th 2018, despite having sold the flight ticket to her a day earlier through an
agent.
2. That the Respondent’s refusal to board her for the flight was on account of her
disability.
3. That further to the above, the Respondent’s employees were ‚extremely rude‛ to
the Appellant and embarrassed her because she was physically challenged.
The Appellant states that on the 4th of May 2018 she, through an agent, purchased a
ticket for a Kumasi-bound flight on the Respondent Airline scheduled to depart Accra
at 9:00 am. The Appellant avers that she arrived at the Kotoka International Airport at
about 6:00 am. The Appellant then states that she went through the regular formalities
for a domestic flight as she prepared to board. Subsequently, according to the
Appellant, the employees of the Respondent asked her whether she was capable of
boarding the flight unassisted, to which she says she answered in the affirmative.
However, per the Appellant, she was prevented from boarding because of her
disability. The Appellant states that she tried to explain to the staff that while she
walked with crutches, she was perfectly capable of boarding unass