High Court rules in favour of NLA- Lotto Operators file for stay of execution
Gilbert Boyefio
21/08/2008
An Accra Fast Track High Court, presided over by Justice Edward Amoah Asante, yesterday dismissed an action by the Ghana Lotto Operators Association on the constitutionality or otherwise of the National Lottery Authority Act 2006, Act 722, which they argued infringed on their rights.
The court by dismissing the application of the operators as unmeritorious, has upheld the position of the NLA that the Supreme Court had declared as constitutional the Lotto Act and therefore there was no basis for the suit to continue at the lower court
However, the lotto operators have expressed their intention to appeal against the decision of the court. They have therefore filed for a motion for stay of execution pending appeal.
The court further held that all the reliefs being sought by the lotto operators are covered under the issue of constitutionality. According to the judge, the order by the NLA for operators to submit their machines is valid and should be complied with.
The court pointed out that since the operators did not plead for compensation in their affidavit, compensation cannot be granted them. The court rather awarded a cost of GH¢2000 against each of the respondents, namely, the Ghana Lotto Operators Association, Obiri Asare and Sons Limited, Rambel Enterprise Limited, Dan Multi-Purpose Trading Enterprise Limited, Agrop Association Limited, Star Lotto Limited and From-Home Enterprises.
On August 14, Kizito Beyuo, counsel for NLA prayed the court to dismiss GLOA's suit against his client on the grounds that the Supreme Court had declared as constitutional the Lotto Act and for that reason there was no basis for the suit to continue at the lower court.
But according to counsel for the lotto operators, Mr Awuku, the matter did not border on only the constitutionality or otherwise of the Lotto Act, but involved the unreasonable directive from the NLA, which had virtually outlawed the operations of the GLOA.
Counsel informed the court that the argument raised by the NLA exposed the NLA's confusion on the matter and for that reason, it was important for the case to be heard on its merit.
Mr Awuku prayed the court not to entertain the NLA’s application on the grounds that the NLA was virtually asking the court to accede to "kangaroo" style of adjudication of cases.
He said the Supreme Court recognised that there were cogent matters that required investigation and determination by the High Court and so did not make a consequential order terminating the plaintiffs’ case.
The Supreme Court on July 23, 2008 stated that the National Lottery Authority Act 2006, Act 722, was not in contravention of the 1992 Constitution and that the statement of claim of the plaintiffs did not state in any way how the law infringed on their rights, especially those enshrined in Articles 33(5), 35(1) and 36 (2)(b).
Following the ruling, the parties were ordered to go back to the High Court where the substantive issue was pending for directions because the Supreme Court neither gave any orders nor award costs.
21/08/2008
An Accra Fast Track High Court, presided over by Justice Edward Amoah Asante, yesterday dismissed an action by the Ghana Lotto Operators Association on the constitutionality or otherwise of the National Lottery Authority Act 2006, Act 722, which they argued infringed on their rights.
The court by dismissing the application of the operators as unmeritorious, has upheld the position of the NLA that the Supreme Court had declared as constitutional the Lotto Act and therefore there was no basis for the suit to continue at the lower court
However, the lotto operators have expressed their intention to appeal against the decision of the court. They have therefore filed for a motion for stay of execution pending appeal.
The court further held that all the reliefs being sought by the lotto operators are covered under the issue of constitutionality. According to the judge, the order by the NLA for operators to submit their machines is valid and should be complied with.
The court pointed out that since the operators did not plead for compensation in their affidavit, compensation cannot be granted them. The court rather awarded a cost of GH¢2000 against each of the respondents, namely, the Ghana Lotto Operators Association, Obiri Asare and Sons Limited, Rambel Enterprise Limited, Dan Multi-Purpose Trading Enterprise Limited, Agrop Association Limited, Star Lotto Limited and From-Home Enterprises.
On August 14, Kizito Beyuo, counsel for NLA prayed the court to dismiss GLOA's suit against his client on the grounds that the Supreme Court had declared as constitutional the Lotto Act and for that reason there was no basis for the suit to continue at the lower court.
But according to counsel for the lotto operators, Mr Awuku, the matter did not border on only the constitutionality or otherwise of the Lotto Act, but involved the unreasonable directive from the NLA, which had virtually outlawed the operations of the GLOA.
Counsel informed the court that the argument raised by the NLA exposed the NLA's confusion on the matter and for that reason, it was important for the case to be heard on its merit.
Mr Awuku prayed the court not to entertain the NLA’s application on the grounds that the NLA was virtually asking the court to accede to "kangaroo" style of adjudication of cases.
He said the Supreme Court recognised that there were cogent matters that required investigation and determination by the High Court and so did not make a consequential order terminating the plaintiffs’ case.
The Supreme Court on July 23, 2008 stated that the National Lottery Authority Act 2006, Act 722, was not in contravention of the 1992 Constitution and that the statement of claim of the plaintiffs did not state in any way how the law infringed on their rights, especially those enshrined in Articles 33(5), 35(1) and 36 (2)(b).
Following the ruling, the parties were ordered to go back to the High Court where the substantive issue was pending for directions because the Supreme Court neither gave any orders nor award costs.
Comments
Post a Comment