Court restrains UG over C'wealth Hall

June 26, 2010 (Page 3)

HUNDREDS of current and past members of the Commonwealth Hall of the University of Ghana (UG) jubilated when the Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday restrained the authorities of the UG from converting the all-male residence into a mixed gender graduate hall.
The excited students hailed and cheered their lawyers, Nana Ato Dadzie and Mr Egbert Faibille Jnr, singing victory songs and making telephone calls to friends to announce their victory.
According to the court, the students would suffer irreparable loss if the hall was converted into a mixed-gender graduate hall because the UG was yet to prove whether or not students from the hall were among an unruly mob of students who gathered in front of the Central Cafeteria on March 13, 2010 and blocked the official procession of the University Council and Senior Members which was yet to begin and physically prevented it from moving towards the ceremony grounds.
The presiding judge, Mr Justice K. A. Ofori-Atta, held that in any case, a committee which was set up to investigate the incident was yet to present its report and it would, therefore, be unfair to assume that the plaintiffs were responsible for the incident.
The students of the hall filed the motion for interlocutory injunction against the UG, the Executive Committee of the UG and Prof. Kwesi Yankah, the Pro-Vice Chancellor of the UG.
However, the court struck out Prof. Yankah’s name from the suit on grounds that it was unnecessary for the plaintiffs to attach his name to it.
Citing authorities to buttress its decision, the court held that the statute establishing the UG, gave the university the mandate to set up halls of residence but the question the court posed was “what informs the present decision of the defendants?”
According to the court, all exhibits submitted by the defendants clearly indicated that the university’s decision to convert the hall into a mixed-gender graduate hall was informed by the March 13, 2010 event, adding that evidence clearly showed that the committee assigned to investigate the incident had not concluded its assignment.
That according to the court, meant that those culpable for the incident were yet to be identified and for that reason, “it seems to me that the individuals or students are yet to be identified. It has not been established that all students from Commonwealth Hall took part in the unfortunate incident.”
The court said it was unfair for the UG to make such decision and further pointed out that the plaintiffs’ action against the defendants was not frivolous or vexatious.
It said the students would lose their hall of residence while the defendants would lose nothing if the defendants’ action was not stopped, adding that, “I will weigh the balance of convenience in favour of the students.”
It, however, directed that its order would elapse at the end of the 2010/2011 academic year.
The court declined to award cost against the defendants.
In the motion for interlocutory injunction, the plaintiffs had stated that unless urgently restrained by the court, the defendants would proceed with their unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional intentions and actions to frustrate and deprive them of their legal and constitutional rights but the defendants denied any wrongdoing and described the action as misconceived and premature.
A new date is to be fixed for the hearing of the substantive application which is praying the court to permanently restrain the defendants from converting the hall as well as an application for contempt filed against the defendants by the plaintiffs.
In the application for contempt, the plaintiffs are contending that the defendants began issuing admission letters to new applicants 10 days after the issue of their writ but counsel for the defendants, Mr Ace Ankomah, has denied any wrongdoing on the part of his clients.