Supreme Court Dismisses Suit Against Prof Avoke’s Reinstatement

The Supreme Court has struck out a suit challenging the reinstatement of Professor Mawutor Avoke as the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Education, Winneba (UEW).

The Supreme Court struck out the case on Tuesday (March 1, 2022), reports Graphic Online’s Emmanuel Ebo Hawkson.

The plaintiff, Emmanuel Ansong Baah, a resident of Darkuman in Accra, who sued in his capacity as a Ghanaian, filed a notice to discontinue the case, which was granted by the court.

Baah was asking the Supreme Court to quash the decision of the Winneba High Court ordering the UEW to reinstate Prof Avoke.

It was the case of the applicant that the case leading to Prof Avoke’s reinstatement was not properly filed and therefore the Winneba High Court has no jurisdiction to determine it.

The applicant argued that the case was filled out of time because it was filed four years after the said events leading to the sacking of Prof Avoke.

“That I have been advised and believe same to be true that since the application was filed out of time, the respondent (Winneba High Court) ought not to have entertained it since it was contrary to the rules,” the applicant said.

Again, the applicant is of the contention that a report by the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) which exonerated Prof Avoke of any wrongdoing was not properly before the Winneba High Court, and therefore the court committed an error when it relied on it for the judgement.

“For a document emanating from an agency of the state to be a legal document, at least it ought to have been signed, stamped and probably on the Letter Head of that institution but in the instant case, it was not the case,” the applicant contended.

Based on the above reasons, the applicant urged the Supreme Court to quash the decision of the Winneba High Court.

“The respondent (Winneba High Court) relying on the EOCO report to order the 2nd interested party (UEW) to reinstate the dismissed officers was erroneous and must not be allowed to stand by the apex court of the land,” the applicant argued.