ayamga yakubu akolgo v. mohammed ahmed alhassan and 3ors

MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A.: On 5th day of February, 2015, the High Court, Accra granted an application for certiorari requested by the applicant and quashed the decision that resulted in the reduction of his rank and salary.

The court further granted an order of mandamus compelling the Ghana Police Force to ensure that the Central Disciplinary Board, properly constituted presides over the matter to conduct the investigations into the alleged improper conduct of the applicant and awarded  Gh¢40,000.00 damages in favour of the applicant for the trauma and distress caused him by the reduction in his rank and salary.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the court, the applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:

i. The award of Gh¢40,000.00 damages to the plaintiff is too high and excessive.

ii.

The learned trial Judge did not address her mind to the fact that the respondents in the case were carrying out their statutory duty under the Police Service Regulations 2012 (C. I. 76) and that assuming they were not granted any immunity against liability, they should not be fixed with such high amount.

iii.

The learned trial Judge failed to advert her mind to the Police Service Regulations 2012 (C. I. 76) which requires or entitles the plaintiff/respondent to be recompense for any loss of salary suffered.

iv.

Further grounds of appeal to be filed on receipt of record of proceedings.

The reliefs sought from this court is for an Order to set aside the damages awarded or alternatively to reduce same drastically to reflect the realities of the situation.

On 16-4-2015, the defendants/appellants filed notice of additional grounds of appeal.

They are:

v. The learned trial Judge’s ruling that the plaintiff/respondent should be paid Gh¢40,000.00 damages is inconsistent with her ruling for the defendants/respondents/appellants  specifically the Police Administration to reconstitute the Central Disciplinary Board to investigate the alleged misconduct of the plaintiff/respondent suggesting directly or indirectly that the matter was not conclusively determined to warrant award of damages.

vi.

Wrongful exercise of discretion by holding that the plaintiff/respondent should be paid damages of Gh¢40,000.00 the trial court wrongfully exercised its discretion when it omitted to have due regard to Regulation 105 (10) of the Police Service Regulation 2012 (C. I. 76) which govern the payment of monetary reliefs in such cases.

vii.

The learned trial Judge fa