Sekondi High Court has dismissed an order to direct the Sekondi Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly (STMA) to allow Madam Lydia Banneman-Hull, a trader, to operate her business on a portion of the pavement.
The Court presided over by Dr. Bridget Kafui Anthonio Apedzi (Mrs.) in her judgment said the STMA was a statutory body, mandated to maintain order in the Central Business District (CBD) of the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis.
The Plaintiff was seeking a declaration that her prevention by the STMA from continuing to sell on the pavement in front of H/No. 13 Liberation Road, Takoradi, where she has been operating for over 15 years was discriminatory.
Madam Bannerman-Hull said the Assembly allowed a co-tenant, who had become a tenant in November 2022 in front of H/No. 13 Liberation Road, Takoradi, operated a drug store to put up tents in front of the pavement, which was discriminatory and contrary to Article 17:2) of the 1992 Constitution.
The Plaintiff therefore sought an order directing the STMA to allow her to operate her business on a portion of the space in front of H/No. 13 Liberation Road, Takoradi.
She also wanted an order for compensation to be paid to her for the financial loss by the defendants for preventing her from operating on the space in front of H/No. 18 Liberation Road, Takoradi.
Meanwhile, STMA denied any act of discrimination against Plaintiff and averred that the type of trading desired by Plaintiff is prohibited by the Local Government Act 2016 (Act 936) and its by-laws of 2017, hence, they were only enforcing the law.
The Assembly explained that the monies collected from the Plaintiff were the required levy towards her trading activities in her shop on the 1st floor, but not for trading on the frontage pavement of the building.
It further explained that Medrugs Pharmacy started operating in early 2020, as a tenant within the same building but rather on the ground floor.
According to the STMA, the owner of the pharmacy shop applied for a permit, which was approved to mount a canopy at the frontage of its shop, during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, to comply with the government’s directives of social distancing and other related protocols.
Dr Anthonio-Apedzi said the Plaintiff’s stance and her claim of right, to sell on the pavement, uncontrolled and defiantly, was inconsistent with civility and good order, therefore, it could not condone wrongdoing or the breaking of the law.
“Therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs sought, for to hold otherwise will spell anarchy and disorder,” she said.
The Judge said, “The Court takes judicial notice of the flagrant discard of the byelaws in the CBD of the country, where traders display their wares, with impunity on the pedestrian walkways of the major cities.
She said the Local government, with its Municipal Assemblies, seems to be losing the battle and to permit the Plaintiff’s request and its effrontery, under the circumstances, was not the remit of a Court of Justice.
She said this “will set a bad example, create an erroneous impression, and turn the law “on its head”. I do not accept that.”
The Judge said a Court could not shut its eyes to the violation of a statute, therefore, the Court finds no incident of discrimination against STMA.
Dr. Anthonio-Apedzi said ignorance of the law was not an excuse and lack of knowledge of the law could not be used to escape liability
