June 24, 2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal, per S. R. Bernasko Essah, J.A., with V. D. Ofoe, J.A. (Presiding) and Janapare Bartels-Kodwo, J.A., concurring, dismissed an appeal from a High Court’s refusal of judicial review reliefs sought by the former Internal Auditor of Wa Polytechnic. After the Governing Council terminated his appointment on 29 August 2018 and the Registrar granted him three months to vacate a staff bungalow, Wa Polytechnic issued an eviction notice and locked the premises on 21 August 2019. The appellant sought certiorari to quash the notice, an injunction, mandamus, and damages, invoking constitutional privacy rights. The Court held he no longer had any legal right to the bungalow; the Polytechnic’s recovery steps were not illegal, irrational, or procedurally improper; discretionary remedies were rightly refused; the injunction lacked merit; and general damages were unavailable while special damages were not strictly proved. The appeal, advanced on weight-of-evidence, failed after the appellate court’s rehearing review of the record and affidavits.
S. R. BERNASKO ESSAH (MRS.), J.A.
This is an appeal, filed by the Plaintiff in person against the ruling of the High Court dated 5th December 2019 refusing to grant a list of reliefs under Order 53 of CI 47 namely certiorari, injunction, damages, mandamus, cost and legal fees. The grounds of appeal are as follows:
1. The judgment is against the weight of the evidence.
2. Additional grounds of appeal to be filed upon receipt of record.
No additional grounds were filed.
By way of background to the instant appeal:
The applicant’s appointment as Internal Auditor was terminated by the Governing Council of Wa Polytechnic, on the 29th of August 2018 and he was accordingly notified by the Registrar of the Polytechnic, the Respondent herein. In the said letter, on page 73 of the ROA he was given three months from the date of termination to vacate the polytechnic Bungalow.
Although applicant deposed that he filed an application for judicial review to quash the decision of the respondent, the said application was not part of the ROA. According to applicant the application was refused on the 22nd of July 2019 on grounds that jurisdiction of the court had not been properly invoked. The said judgment was however not part of the ROA.
The respondent thereupon sent the applicant a Notice of Eviction from his bungalow, since he ceased to be a staff of the polytechnic. He was to vacate his bungalow within a week. The applicant then filed an appeal on 19th August 2019, against the ruling of the court of 22nd July 2019 aforementioned, which refused to grant the application for judicial review. Applicant on the same day filed an application for Stay of Proceedings seeking an order directed at the Respondent “to stay proceedings or any steps required, or necessitated and occasioned under the ruling delivered on July 22nd 2019.” On the 21st of August 2019, the respondent, put all entrances of the bungalow occupied by the applicant under new lock and key. And pasted a notice on the premises, informing him that he ceased to be an occupant of the bungalow with effect from 21st August 2019, having failed to comply with earlier notices. He was to contact management for access to the facility to pick up his belongings within 48 hours. This is as per Exhibit CA5, reference Page 14 of ROA.
Applicant then filed the instant application for judicial review, on 27th September 2019, which ruling thereon is the subject matter of this appeal.
The reliefs sought were as follows:
1.