February 9, 2022
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC, dismissed the further appeal of a Bank of Ghana employee who was ejected from official accommodation and summarily dismissed after refusing to relocate during a redevelopment project. The employee occupied Flat 3, Block F, East Cantonments under a license agreement and contended that his license and employment conditions entitled him to remain. The Bank issued multiple queries and warnings (Exhibits K, L, Q) and offered alternative accommodation, but the employee persisted. The High Court and Court of Appeal held he was a licensee without proprietary interest, that the license was revocable, and that his continued occupation constituted trespass. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant’s grounds were largely vague under CI 19. The Court affirmed that Article 13(b) permitted summary dismissal for gross misconduct and willful disobedience, rejected constitutional arguments under Articles 19(7) and 191, found the injunction restrained only disciplinary proceedings, and refused to disturb concurrent findings. The appeal was dismissed and the Court of Appeal’s decision affirmed.
DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC:-
Facts
The plaintiff/appellant/ herein, was an employee of the defendant/respondent, Bank of Ghana. I will refer to the parties as plaintiff and defendant hereafter.
The defendant allocated its premises, Block F, 2ndShippi Close East Cantonments to a number of its staff including the plaintiff for their
occupation based on a license agreement. The plaintiff occupied Flat 3 in the said block F. In the year 2011, the bank needed to redevelop the said property; it therefore gave notice to the occupants including the plaintiff to relocate to an alternative accommodation the bank provided. All other staff of the bank who occupied block F moved out as instructed, except the plaintiff. Repeated warning letters were served on the plaintiff requiring him to move out but he refused. He maintained there was a license agreement between him and his employer, the terms of which he claimed entitled him to remain in the flat. After repeated written warnings and sanctions failed to get the plaintiff out of the flat, the defendant physically removed him from the property.
The plaintiff engaged his employers in various legal tussle. The action culminating in this appeal is one of the many actions instituted by the plaintiff against his employer, the Bank of Ghana.
The trial court
The claims of the plaintiff as endorsed in his amended writ of summons are as follows:
a. A declaration that the conduct of defendant bank is in breach of the license agreement between it and plaintiff.
b. A declaration that the defendant bank has acted in breach of the Senior Staff Rules and Conditions of Service.
c. A declaration that the sanctions imposed on the plaintiff is unlawful, illegal and ultra vires.
c. (i) A declaration that the ejectment of plaintiff was unlawful and wrong.
c. (ii) A declaration that the dismissal of plaintiff by defendant bank is wrongful, unlawful, ultra vires, and unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
c. (iii) An order setting aside the dismissal of plaintiff and re-instating the plaintiff with all his benefit, position, emolument or any conditions that goes with his position.
d. An order setting aside the sanctions imposed on plaintiff. e. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant herein, their assigns, workers, servants, independent contractors or any person claiming through them from ejecting plaintiff from his official accommodation contrary to the license agreement, particularly pending the final determination of t