Owusu-mensah and Another Vrs National Board For Professional and Technical Examinations (naptex) and Others [2018] GHASC 27 (9 May 2018)

Owusu-mensah and Another Vrs National Board For Professional and Technical Examinations (naptex) and Others [2018] GHASC 27 (9 May 2018)

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter via judicial review, as the statute did not prescribe a specific procedure for redress. The appellants were denied due process, and the termination of their employment was unlawful. The Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the High Court's ruling solely on procedural grounds.

Citation
[2018] GHASC 27
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Francis Owusu-Mensah; Plaintiff/appellant: Stephen O. Adjapong; Defendant/respondent: National Board for Professional & Technical Examinations (NAPTEX); Defendant/respondent: Prof. Paul N. Buatsi; Defendant/respondent: Mr. Francis W. Y. Tagbor
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
9 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Wrongful Termination, Due Process, Public Service Employment, Certiorari, Mandamus
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Employment Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Wrongful Termination Due Process Public Service Employment Certiorari +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Owusu-Mensah

Plaintiff/appellant

Stephen O. Adjapong

Plaintiff/appellant

National Board for Professional & Technical Examinations (NAPTEX)

Defendant/respondent

Prof. Paul N. Buatsi

Defendant/respondent

Mr. Francis W. Y. Tagbor

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter via judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the termination of the appellants' employment was unlawful for lack of due process
  3. 3 Whether judicial review was the appropriate procedure for redress

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter via judicial review, as the statute did not prescribe a specific procedure for redress. The appellants were denied due process, and the termination of their employment was unlawful. The Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the High Court's ruling solely on procedural grounds.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The letter terminating the appointments of the appellants is quashed.
  • Appellants are to be restored to their respective positions.