DANIEL DORKPOH VS ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The Plaintiff herein, Daniel Dorkpoh, a former District Magistrate at Akatsi in the Volta Region of the Republic of Ghana, commenced the instant action against the Defendant on 7th February, 2011, for the following reliefs:

a. A declaration that the failure of the Chief Justice or the Judicial Service to serve him with the petition dated 12th January, 2010, for him to have responded to the same prior to the said hearing was in breach of the audi alteram partem rule and therefore he was not given a fair hearing.

b. A declaration that the punishment meted out to the Plaintiff regarding the remand of the said Petitioner over a civil debt was too severe or excessive, having regard to the fact that he had never fallen foul of the law in the performance of his duties as a Magistrate.

c. A declaration that the dismissal of the Plaintiff from the service without a prior confirmation by the President amounts to unlawful dismissal.

d. An order that the Plaintiff be reinstated.

e. A further order that all salary arrears and other benefits be paid to him with immediate effect.

f. Damages for unlawful dismissal.

g. In the alternative, an order for mitigation of the punishment handed to him.

The Defendant entered appearance on 16th February, 2011, and went on to file his statement of defence denying the claim of the Plaintiff.

On 6th July, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a reply to the statement of defence and went on to file an application for directions on the same day in which the following issues were raised:

a. Whether or not the Plaintiff was served with the petition dated 12th January, 2011, prior to the disciplinary committee hearing.

b. Whether or not the failure of the Judicial Service or the appropriate person or body to have served the Plaintiff with the petition dated 12th January, 2010, to enable him to have responded to the same prior to the hearing amounted to a breach of the audi alteram partem rule.

c. Whether or not the dismissal of the Plaintiff from the Judicial Service by the Chief Justice without prior confirmation by the President amounts to unlawful dismissal.

d. Whether or not the Disciplinary Committee recommended that the Plaintiff should be reprimanded.

e. Whether or not the dismissal of the Plaintiff was an abuse of discretion by the Judicial Council contrary to the 1992 Constitution.

f. Whether or not the dismissal of the Plaintiff because of his remand of the said Petitioner over a civil debt was too severe or excessive, having r