Presiding judge Her Ladyship Gifty Addo said granting the request will delay the case because both cases would require their own judgment in the end.
The school filed its affidavit in opposition to the case today, Friday, 30 April 2021.
The judge said she did not have the opportunity to peruse the document.
The school is also yet to file its written submission.
The court thus, gave, the school five working days to file it.
Also, a cost of GHS10, 000 prayed for by Wayoe Ghanamannti, the lawyer for Oheneba Nkrabea, against Achimota SHS, was not granted.
Mr Ghanamannti said the amount was to pay for the homeschooling of Oheneba, as the matter was in court.
The case was adjourned to 14 May 2021.
The Human Rights Court 1 Division of the High Court recently dismissed an interlocutory injunction application filed by Tyrone Marhguy against Achimota SHS.
He wanted the school to temporarily grant him admission while the substantive case he has filed against the school for rejecting him on grounds of his hairdo, is determined by the court.
The presiding judge, Justice Gifty Addo, ruled on Tuesday, 13 April 2021 that the entire application touched on the substance of the substantive suit.
She, therefore, noted that it would be pre-emptive to grant the application before the substantive case is determined.
Justice Gifty Addo, however, stressed the need to quicken the trial process so that the applicant’s education is not affected.
The same court, earlier dismissed an application to force Achimota SHS to admit Oheneba Nkrabea temporarily, while waiting for the final determination of the substantive case in which he is fighting the school for not admitting him because he wears dreadlocks.
In his case, the teenager, through his father, argued that he is disadvantaged, as he remains at home waiting for the final decision of the court on the substantive case while his colleagues are in school.
But, once again, the court, presided over by Her Ladyship Gifty Adjei Addo, on Monday, 12 April 2021, said forcing the school to temporarily admit the student would be prejudicial to the substantive matter.
In her reasoned opinion, expediting the trial would be in the interest of the student, as the mandatory injunction would have allowed him to be in school for only 10 days.
Read Full Story