2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appeal against the High Court's ruling is allowed. The learned trial judge's insistence that the termination was a dismissal and the breach of the Manual's provisions were erroneous. The first appellant was required to provide reasons for the termination under Article 191(b) of the 1992 Constitution. The procedure of judicial review was inappropriate for the redress sought by the respondents.
J U D G M E N T
AGYEMANG, JA:
This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court of 29th day of October 2014 by which the court granted the reliefs sought for: inter alia, a declaration that the termination of the employment of the applicants therein was unlawful, an order for certiorari to quash the decision of the board chairman to terminate the said appointments, and an order of mandamus to compel them to reinstate them to their previous positions.
The matters that have given rise to the present appeal are as follows:
The first and second applicants at the court below (hereafter referred to as the respondents), were until the 28th of November 2013, the Deputy Executive Secretary and the Test Development Secretary respectively, of the first respondent/appellant. The first respondent/appellant (hereafter referred to as the first appellant), is a Public Service body set up under the National Board for Professional and Technician Examinations Act, 1994, Act 492 with a mandate to inter alia, formulate and administer examinations, evaluations, assessments, certification and standard, for skill and syllabus competence for non-university tertiary institutions, professional bodies and private institutions with due accreditation.
The first respondent’s career with the first appellant started when on 25th of July 2006, he was appointed the Deputy Executive Secretary of the first appellant. By letter of 4th July 2011, he was appointed the Acting Executive Secretary thereof from 14th June 2011, which position he relinquished to revert to his original position of Deputy Executive Secretary when a substantive Executive Secretary(the third appellant herein), was appointed on 1st December 2011. The latter had before the said appointment, held the position of Head, Curriculum Development and Research Department.
The second respondent was on the 20th of December 2006, appointed as Assistant Curriculum Development and Research Secretary of the first appellant. By letter of 26th February 2010, he was confirmed and elevated to the position of its Test Development Secretary.
On 28th of November 2013, both respondents had their appointments terminated by two separate letters of that date, under the hand of the Board Chairman: the second appellant herein. The content of the letters was identical and contained no concrete reason for the act of termination save a cryptic reference to: “the recent events at NABPTEX” following which the Board of Directors was said to hav