THE COMMISSIONER OF CHRAJ & ORS VS GHANA NATIONAL FIRE SERVICE & ANOR
January 22, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE NICHOLAS M. C. ABODAKPI
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Employment Law
- Human rights Law
- Administrative Law
January 22, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In an application dated 20/05/2018, the Ghana National Fire Service sought a stay of execution of a High Court judgment delivered on 23/04/2018, asserting through Divisional Officer Edmund A. Nai that an appeal had been filed raising serious legal issues and warning that paying a monetary award exceeding GH2300,000 to the Respondents might be irrecoverable if the appeal succeeded. The Notice of Appeal filed on 17/07/2018 alleged error in ordering reinstatement and challenged the finding of unlawful dismissal. CHRAJ, via Senior Assistant Registrar Tettey Amediku, opposed, contending the Applicants offered no adequate reason and highlighting greater hardship to the Respondents. Restating the established stay criteria, the Court found no exceptional circumstances and no demonstrated error in the underlying judgment, characterizing it as enforcement of social and economic rights rather than constitutional interpretation. On the balance of convenience, hardship to Respondents weighed against a stay. The motion was dismissed without costs.
On 20/05/2018, this motion on notice for stay of execution was filed, there is a deposition/affidavit in support, as well as a supplementary affidavit in support.
And what is said in support by Edmund A. Nai, a Divisional Officer Grade III of Ghana National Fire Service is that, they are aggrieved about the judgment of this Court, delivered on 23/04/2018. It has also been contended that an appeal has been filed, which raises serious legal issues, therefore, execution must be stayed.
And yet one other reason given in support is that the judgment debt of over GH¢300, 000. 00 may not be recovered from Respondents once it is paid to them and they lose on appeal.
This Court has perused the Notice of Appeal, filed on 17/07/2018, it has been stated therein that, the trial judge erred in law when it ordered the reinstatement of 2nd and 3rd Applicants/Respondents.
It also showed that Applicants herein are challenging the decision of the Court to the effect that, the dismissal of Respondents herein was unlawful.
There are other grounds stated in the Notice of Appeal.
Furthermore, the supplementary affidavit in support has annexed to it, the judgment of this Court (differently constituted). And I have perused same, as the judgment delivered by Anthony K. Yeboah (J. A. ) my predecessor, sitting as Additional High Court Judge.
On the other hand is the affidavit deposed to by Tettey Amediku of CHRAJ, a Senior Assistant Registrar of CHRAJ.
He argued that apart from the averment that serious legal issues have been raised in the Appeal and that Respondents may be unable to refund the judgment debt, no other reason has been stated which should merit the order, Applicants are seeking.
He contends that Respondents will suffer more hardship if the application is granted and their training and investment in them will go waste, and the state will be the loser.
The principles that underpin this type of application are these: 1) A successful Applicant must establish that, there are exceptional circumstances which are legal and factual in nature, affecting the decision sought to be stayed.
And that these are matters that an Appellate Court must examine.