CHRIS KUMASSAH-AGBOGLI v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ANOTHER
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- F. KUSI-APPIAH, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- F.G. KORBIEH, J.A.
- WELBOURNE (MRS.), J.A
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Employment Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Crusading Guide newspaper reported alleged fraud involving the plaintiff, leading to his dismissal after an investigative committee found he collected $30,000 unauthorizedly. He challenged this in the High Court, which dismissed his claims. The plaintiff filed an appeal but many grounds were struck out for not complying with rules. The Court of Appeal reviewed the evidence, upheld the High Court's ruling, and dismissed the appeal.
F.G. KORBIEH, J.A.
The 10th – 16th April 2003 edition of the “Crusading Guide” newspaper carried an article captioned: “$30,000 Fraud Uncovered – As Official of Registrar-General’s Department inflates cost of Registration of Company and pockets surplus cash.” The article alleged that the plaintiff/appellant herein was the perpetrator of the fraud. Subsequent to the publication, the Registrar-General set up a committee to go into the allegation made by the newspaper. The committee duly investigated the matter and found, among other things, that the plaintiff/appellant (hereinafter referred to only as the plaintiff (then a Principle Executive Officer at the Registrar-General’s Department (RGD) ) had collected an amount of US$30,000.00 from a foreign investor (ostensibly on behalf of the Registrar-General) and issued a hand-written receipt to that effect. The committee also found that the plaintiff had thereby committed an act of gross misconduct under the provisions of the Civil Service Act, 1960 (Act 5). The plaintiff was accordingly dismissed from the civil service. The plaintiff’s petition against his dismissal was turned down by the Head of Civil Service. The plaintiff therefore instituted an action in the High Court seeking (1) a declaration that his dismissal was unlawful, (2) an order for his reinstatement in the civil Service, (3) an order for compensation, (4) an order for his promotion and (5) costs. The defendants/respondents (hereinafter referred to only as the defendants) denied that they were liable. They averred that the investigative committee set up by the Registrar-General had found the plaintiff guilty of fraud and that his dismissal was in accordance with the relevant law. Issues were therefore joined and a trial ensued. At the end of the trial the trial court held that the defendants were not liable and accordingly threw out the plaintiff’s claim in its entirety. The trial court made several findings of fact, the most important of which, to my mind, were the following: (a) that the plaintiff had collected US$30,000.00 from a foreign investor as consideration for completing documentation to enable the foreign investor invest in a company called Heritage Mineral Marketing Company Limited; (b) that the plaintiff took the money on behalf of the Registrar-General when he was not authorized to do so and (c) that the plaintiff had misconducted himself within the general law and the meaning of section 76(1) of the Civil Service Act, 1993 (PNDC