Priave lotto operators to function until ...

Thursday, April 2, 2009 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday gave the nod to private lotto operators to function until the Court of Appeal determined otherwise.
In staying its earlier decision which outlawed private lotto in the country, the court stated that the Ghana Lotto Operators Association (GLOA) and six others had raised issues which needed to be heard by the Court of Appeal on their merit.
It, accordingly, restrained the National Lottery Authority (NLA) from interfering with the property rights of the applicants, namely, the GLOA, Obiri Asare and Sons Limited, Rambel Enterprises Limited, Dan Multipurpose Trading Enterprise Limited, Agrop Association Limited, Star Lotto Limited and From-Home Enterprises.
Citing authorities to buttress its decision, the presiding judge, Mr Justice Edward Amoako Asante, said he agreed with applicants assertion that there were triable issues to be looked into and for that matter “it is only fair to maintain the status quo of applicants.”
The Fast Track High Court’s judgement banning private lotto followed an application by the NLA, which prayed the court to dismiss plaintiffs’ suit on the premise that the Supreme Court had declared the Lotto Act, (NLA) Act 2006, Act 722 as constitutional and, for that reason, there was no basis for the substantive suit to continue at the lower court.
Following the dismissal, the applicants appealed at the Court of Appeal and filed another application praying the lower court to stay its decision pending the outcome of the appeal.
At its sitting in Accra yesterday, the court admitted affirming the Supreme Court’s decision which declared the Lotto Act constitutional but stated that the applicants had raised issues which needed to be determined by the Court of Appeal.
According to the court, the applicants might suffer irreparable hardship if it did not stay execution of its judgement pending the outcome of the appeal which might go either way.
That notwithstanding, the court directed the GLOA and the other applicants to file an undertaken in the sum of GH¢1 million.
It did not award costs.
Counsel for the NLA, Mr Kizito Beyuo, prayed the court to be specific as to its orders, to which counsel for the applicants, Mr Aurelius Awuku, argued that they were clear.
In reply, the trial judge stated that the applicants could go on with their business until the Court of Appeal determined otherwise.
In the substantive appeal, the appellants stated that the trial judge erred in law by summarily dismissing an action which concerned their fundamental human rights.
They said the trial judge failed in his duty to give them a fair hearing in a case involving serious issues of fact and several pieces of evidence.
In the application for injunction pending the outcome of the appeal, the applicants argued that the court’s outlaw of private lotto was wrong in law and an improper exercise of discretion.
According to the applicants, "the subsequent dismissal of our action raises serious questions of law and fact which would have to be considered by the appellate court".
An affidavit in support of their motion for stay of execution stated that the ruling of the Fast Track High Court had the potential of folding up the businesses of the plaintiffs, which it said "would be irreparable in the likely event that the appellate court reverses the wrongful ruling".
It said the appeal, which was likely to succeed, touched on the fundamental human rights of the plaintiffs and accordingly prayed the court to restrain the NLA from interfering with the work or property rights of the plaintiffs, pending the determination of the appeal.
According to the applicants, the Supreme Court recognised that the plaintiffs were not at the mercy of the state in seeking to participate in the state-regulated lottery industry.
It further argued that the Supreme Court never said the plaintiffs could not participate in the state-regulated lottery industry and accordingly prayed the Court of Appeal to set aside the ruling of the trial court, as well as an order to restore their action for it to be determined on the merits after a proper hearing.
The GLOA has, in the past year, lost four different motions it filed challenging the eligibility of the Lotto Act, right from the Fast Track High Court, the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.