NLA, Private Lotto Operators in legal merry go round
Gilbert Boyefio
There seems to be no end to the legal tussle between the National Lottery Authority and the Ghana Lotto Operators Association, as the former has dragged the latter to the Supreme Court to have the judgment of a Fast Track Court in favour of the GLOA quashed.
This is going to be the third time that the two parties are going to appear before the Supreme Court since the legal tussle on the constitutionality of the NLA Act, Act 722, started on August 13, 2007.
In the present suit, the NLA is seeking to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by way of a certiorari directed to the Fast Track High Court 1, presided over by His Lordship Justice Asante, for the purpose of quashing his judgment dated April 1, 2009, granting the GLOA’s application for interlocutory injunction pending appeal.
In its affidavit before the Supreme Court, the NLA argued that since the GLOA refused to apply to be licensed as Lotto Marketing Companies under the NLA Act, Act 722, within 90 days of the coming into force of Act 722, their licenses to operate lotto was automatically revoked and the GLOA could not legally operate private or any other form of lotto in Ghana.
They said at the commencement of the GLOA’s action in August 2007, private lotto had been outlawed and remains outlawed to date.
The NLA held that the Judge at the Fast Track High Court 1 did not have the jurisdiction to authorise the GLOA to continue with their private lotto operations pending the determination of their appeal since it amounts to authorising them to conduct illegal business. They further held that since gambling is illegal, it can only be sanctioned by law and the Fast Track Court Judge did not have the jurisdiction to sanction the GLOA or any other person to conduct gambling.
‘The decision of the Fast Track High Court 1 Judge is unreasonable in law in so far as it permits the GLOA to operate gambling business without any regulatory regime,’ the NLA stressed.
The NLA also submitted that there is error of law apparent on the face of the record as to render the decision of the Fast Track High Court 1 judge a nullity and unreasonable.
However, the GLOA comprising Obiri Asare and Sons Ltd, Rambel Ent Ltd, AGROP Association Ltd, Dan Multi-purpose trading Ent Ltd, Star Lotto Ltd and From Home Ent, in their affidavit in opposition have described the NLA application as frivolous, misconceived and a complete abuse of the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. They said there is no error of law patent on the face of the record. “The Fast Track High Court 1 judge had the power to grant the injunction and was right in granting the application for interlocutory injunction,” they maintained.
The GLOA argued that the Supreme Court, at its first sitting on the matter, never said that they had no right to engage in lotto business, neither have they (GLOA) asserted that they have an unrestrained right to engage in lotto business free from any licensing regime. They further pointed out that the Supreme Court has held that they are not at the mercy of the state but only have to abide by a licensing regime which is fair and candid.
The GLOA argued that if the NLA is dissatisfied with the Fast Track High Court 1 ruling, the proper course to take is an appeal and not certiorari. They observed that some of the issues raised by the NLA are the subject matter of the substantive suit and are yet to be determined.
There seems to be no end to the legal tussle between the National Lottery Authority and the Ghana Lotto Operators Association, as the former has dragged the latter to the Supreme Court to have the judgment of a Fast Track Court in favour of the GLOA quashed.
This is going to be the third time that the two parties are going to appear before the Supreme Court since the legal tussle on the constitutionality of the NLA Act, Act 722, started on August 13, 2007.
In the present suit, the NLA is seeking to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by way of a certiorari directed to the Fast Track High Court 1, presided over by His Lordship Justice Asante, for the purpose of quashing his judgment dated April 1, 2009, granting the GLOA’s application for interlocutory injunction pending appeal.
In its affidavit before the Supreme Court, the NLA argued that since the GLOA refused to apply to be licensed as Lotto Marketing Companies under the NLA Act, Act 722, within 90 days of the coming into force of Act 722, their licenses to operate lotto was automatically revoked and the GLOA could not legally operate private or any other form of lotto in Ghana.
They said at the commencement of the GLOA’s action in August 2007, private lotto had been outlawed and remains outlawed to date.
The NLA held that the Judge at the Fast Track High Court 1 did not have the jurisdiction to authorise the GLOA to continue with their private lotto operations pending the determination of their appeal since it amounts to authorising them to conduct illegal business. They further held that since gambling is illegal, it can only be sanctioned by law and the Fast Track Court Judge did not have the jurisdiction to sanction the GLOA or any other person to conduct gambling.
‘The decision of the Fast Track High Court 1 Judge is unreasonable in law in so far as it permits the GLOA to operate gambling business without any regulatory regime,’ the NLA stressed.
The NLA also submitted that there is error of law apparent on the face of the record as to render the decision of the Fast Track High Court 1 judge a nullity and unreasonable.
However, the GLOA comprising Obiri Asare and Sons Ltd, Rambel Ent Ltd, AGROP Association Ltd, Dan Multi-purpose trading Ent Ltd, Star Lotto Ltd and From Home Ent, in their affidavit in opposition have described the NLA application as frivolous, misconceived and a complete abuse of the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. They said there is no error of law patent on the face of the record. “The Fast Track High Court 1 judge had the power to grant the injunction and was right in granting the application for interlocutory injunction,” they maintained.
The GLOA argued that the Supreme Court, at its first sitting on the matter, never said that they had no right to engage in lotto business, neither have they (GLOA) asserted that they have an unrestrained right to engage in lotto business free from any licensing regime. They further pointed out that the Supreme Court has held that they are not at the mercy of the state but only have to abide by a licensing regime which is fair and candid.
The GLOA argued that if the NLA is dissatisfied with the Fast Track High Court 1 ruling, the proper course to take is an appeal and not certiorari. They observed that some of the issues raised by the NLA are the subject matter of the substantive suit and are yet to be determined.
Comments
Post a Comment