Akplotsyi Vrs Ho Technical University & 2 Ors [2023] GHAHC 220 (23 January 2023)

Akplotsyi Vrs Ho Technical University & 2 Ors [2023] GHAHC 220 (23 January 2023)

The applicant failed to prove that the respondents' acts and omissions were without legal basis or were applied to him with bias, arbitrariness, or prejudice. The actions taken were of general application under the university's governing statutes and did not amount to a breach of fundamental human rights under Article 33 of the Constitution.

Citation
Akplotsyi Vrs Ho Technical University & 2 Ors [2023] GHAHC 220 (23 January 2023)
Parties
Applicant: Dr. Richard Akplotsyi; 1st Respondent: Ho Technical University; 2nd Respondent: Prof. Ben Quarshie Honyenuga; 3rd Respondent: Attorney General
Court
ghahc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
23 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Originating Motion Under Article 33 of the 1992 Constitution and Order 67 of the High Court (civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (c.i. 47) / Judgment at First Instance (high Court)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Fundamental Human Rights, Right to Work, Employment Suspension, University Governance, Due Process in Disciplinary Proceedings
Source Language
eng
Constitutional Law Labour Law Administrative Law Enforcement of Fundamental Human Rights Right to Work Employment Suspension University Governance Due Process in Disciplinary Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Richard Akplotsyi

Applicant

Ho Technical University

1st Respondent

Prof. Ben Quarshie Honyenuga

2nd Respondent

Attorney General

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Originating Motion Under Article 33 of the 1992 Constitution and Order 67 of the High Court (civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (c.i. 47) / Judgment at First Instance (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suspension of the applicant without pay violated his fundamental human rights under the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's position as senior lecturer was tenured and exempt from periodic contract renewal
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' actions were arbitrary, capricious, or actuated by malice in violation of the applicant's rights

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove that the respondents' acts and omissions were without legal basis or were applied to him with bias, arbitrariness, or prejudice. The actions taken were of general application under the university's governing statutes and did not amount to a breach of fundamental human rights under Article 33 of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed