2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal of Ghana considered an appeal by a former typist of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), who had been dismissed after internal disciplinary proceedings. CHRAJ alleged she attempted to influence Circuit Court Judge Koomson at Akim Swedru in a dispute over a defective car and engaged in persistent misconduct, including habitual lateness, quarrels with colleagues, invoking supernatural forces, and insubordination to the District Director. A regional disciplinary committee investigated and the Commissioner signed a dismissal letter dated 21 September 2001. The High Court, Koforidua, ruled for CHRAJ on 29 September 2008. On appeal, the Court rejected arguments that an identifiable complainant was required under constitutional provisions, distinguished CHRAJ’s external remit from internal staff discipline, affirmed that wrongful dismissal requires proof of contractual terms or statutory breach, and dismissed the appeal.
JUDGEMENT
L. L. MENSAH, J.A.
This is an appeal launched by the Plaintiff/Appellant who will hereinafter be referred to as the Plaintiff against the judgment of the High Court, Koforidua in favour of Defendant on 29th September, 2008. Defendant/Respondent is hereinafter referred to as the Defendant.
The facts which begot this appeal are as follows:- The Plaintiff until 21st September 2001 was a typist at Akim Oda District Office of the Defendant institution which is headed by a District Director.
The case of the Plaintiff is that while at CHRAJ Akim Swedru as a worker, she went to His Honour Judge Koomson, the then Circuit Court Judge at Akim Swedru. She went to the judge to plead with him to collect an amount of money which her brother paid for a car he bought since it was not a good car. When she went she did not offer any bribe to the judge.
She was put on interdiction and later a Committee was formed to go into the matter concerning His Honour Judge Koomson. She was not asked to confront the judge.
On allegation of insubordination, habitual late coming to work etc, Plaintiff denied all this. Plaintiff said the committee’s work, her dismissal and all the procedure adopted to investigate her were wrong.
In reaction, the Defendant completely denied the claim of the Plaintiff. The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff as a worker of its institution had been flouting the basic code of conduct with persistence. A number of queries were given to the Plaintiff at different times, but she persisted in flouting the code. Among the allegations of impropriety was an attempt by the Plaintiff to influence the then Circuit Court Judge, His Honour Judge Koomson with financial inducement in a case before the judge. The judge in open court expressed his disapproval of Plaintiff’s conduct. This brought embarrassment to the Defendant institution as alleged by Defendant.
Apart from the above, it was alleged that the Plaintiff had turned herself into a habitual late-comer to work. Inspite of series of queries to her to come to work on time, Plaintiff persisted. And despite the fact that Plaintiff’s house was few hundred metres from the District Office of the Defendant, the Plaintiff failed to report to work on time.
Further, the Defendant was alleged to be in the habit of fighting and quarelling with one staff after another. This is accompanied by invoking of supernatural forces against her perceived enemies at the office.
The Plaintiff also allegedly refused to obe