MIGHTY FM LTD vs. NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY, ACCRA [2018]DLECT4612

Date	2018-07-24
Suit No.	APPEAL NO: ECT/APP/005/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLECT4612

JUSTICE DATE-BAH (PRESIDING)

PROFESSOR QUAYNOR

MR AKPADZI

ROBERT SUMAA FOR THE APPELLANT

GOLDA DENYO FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2018]DLECT4612
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >MIGHTY FM LTD<o:p></o:p>(APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY, ACCRA<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>(ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS TRIBUNAL)<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

APPEAL NO: ECT/APP/005/2018&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 24TH
JULY 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>ROBERT
SUMAA FOR THE APPELLANT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

GOLDA
DENYO FOR THE RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>JUSTICE
DATE-BAH (PRESIDING), PROFESSOR QUAYNOR, MR AKPADZI <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">DECISION<o:p></o:p>

</div>PROF.
DATE-BAH JSC (RETIRED): <o:p></o:p>On
19th January 2018, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal, pursuant to section
88 of the Electronic Communications Act, 2008 (Act 775) and Regulation 1 of the
Electronic Communications (Rules of Procedure of the Electronic Communications
Tribunal) Regulations, 2016 (LI 2235), expressing dissatisfaction with the
Respondent's decision refusing to vacate totally the penalty imposed on it, but
rather imposing a reduced fine by a letter dated 21st December 2017. The
Appellant also complained of the Respondent's refusal to undertake an
inspection of the Appellant's newly acquired premises at Amakom, Kumasi, in
spite of repeated requests to do so. <o:p></o:p>The
reliefs sought by the Appellant were, first, the vacation of the Respondent's
decision imposing a fine on the Appellant and the restraining of the Respondent
from revoking/suspending the Appellant's authorisation or closing down its
station. The second relief sought was an order enjoining the Respondent to
undertake an inspection of its newly acquired premises in Kumasi. <o:p></o:p>This
second claimed relief induced a preliminary objection by the Respondent. On 21*
February 2018, the Appellant applied for an Order of Interim Injunction
pursuant to Order 25 r1 of the High Court Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47)
and Regulation 10(9) of Electronic Communications (Rules of Procedure of the
Electronic Communications Tribunal) Regulations: 2016 (LI 2235) to compel the
Respondent to undertake an inspection of the Appellant's new premises in
Kumasi. The Respondent not only filed an affidavit in opposition to this
motiam. For interim injunction, but also filed a Statement of Case in Opposition
to it. The Respondent followed up with a Notice of Preliminary Objection, filed
on 5th March 2018. The ground of the objection was stated in the Notice as:
“The Electronic Communication Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 91 of the
Electronic Communications Act, 2008 (Act 775) has been wrongly invoked by the
Appellant in respect of the aspect of its appeal which contends to be appealing
against a decision of the Respondent refusing to inspect the Appellant's newly acquired
premises." <o:p></o:p>By
a Ruling dated 15th May 2018, this Tribunal upheld this preliminary objection
on the ground that the Respondent had not made any decision not to inspect the
Appellant's premises.. <o:p></o:p>Without
such a decision, the Appellant had not properly invoked the jurisdiction of
this <o:p></o:p>Tribunal
in relation to the inspection of the Appellant's premises in Kumasi. <o:p></o:p>Following
this Ruling therefore, the only relief in contention before the Tribunal is the
requesti for a vacation of the Respondent's decision imposing a fine on the
Appellant and the restraining of the Respondent from revoking/suspending the
Appellant's authorisation or closing down its station. <o:p></o:p>The
facts of this case, as deposed to by the General Manager of the Appellant and
as can be gleaned from the correspondence appended to the Respondent's
Statement of Case, are as follows: on 13th February 2002, the Appellant was
authorised by the Respondent to establish and operate a commercial broadcasting
radio station in Mampong on the assigned frequency of 91.1 MHz. The duration of
the authorisation was five years. Pursuant to this authorisation, the Appellant
imported the requisite equipment and developed a property for purposes of its
operations at Mampong at a cost running into millions of cedis. The Appellant
has since <o:p></o:p>February
2002 operated this radio station in Mampong in the Ashanti Region, paying the
requisite annual, regulatory and spectrum charges to the Respondent. <o:p></o:p>By
a letter dated 28th September 2017 written by the Respondent, it imposed a fine
on the Appellant for infringing offence Number N(7) of the Schedule of
Penalties gazette by the Respondent. The offence is set out in the letter as
follows: <o:p></o:p>"Failing to submit to the
Authority in a manner and at times as may be reasonably requested documents,
accounts, estimates, returns and other information that may be required under
the Authorisation, attracts a fine of Ten Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHS 10,000.00)
for each day the infraction persists." <o:p></o:p>The
Appellant, in the meantime, applied for a relocation of its radio station from
Mampong to Kumasi, which the Respondent granted. As a condition precedent to
the grant of relocation to Kumasi, the Appellant paid 2017 annual regulatory
and spectrum charges in the amount of 12,705 Ghana Cedis. The App</main>