2021
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Supreme Court appeal by George Akpass, a long-serving chief clerk of Ghana Commercial Bank’s Bole Branch, challenged his summary dismissal following interdiction and a disciplinary process examining his authorisation of immediate value for clearing cheques, pledging the bank to honour post-dated cheques, and disbursing a vehicle loan contrary to Executive Credit Committee instructions. The High Court dismissed his claims; the Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed. In the Supreme Court, Amegatcher, JSC authored the majority judgment, applying principles governing appeals against concurrent findings, interpreting the CBA and Act 651, and concluding that the interdiction letter need not match the charges, the disciplinary committee was properly constituted under the CBA, management was not bound by committee recommendations, and any failure to notify the union was remediable and did not invalidate dismissal. The Court corrected a misallocation of the evidential burden but found fair hearing satisfied and summary dismissal lawful under the CBA, dismissing the appeal. Pwamang, JSC dissented, finding the dismissal substantively and procedurally unfair and ordering reinstatement.
JUDGMENT
MAJORITY OPINION
AMEGATCHER, JSC:-
Until 29th May 2009, the appellant, George Akpass was a chief clerk of the Bole Branch of respondent bank, having worked there for approximately 27 years. The appellant was summarily dismissed on 29th May 2009. He was initially interdicted for certain acts of fraudulent transfer of funds into his accounts and uncredited lodgement into the account of Total Petroleum by a customer of the bank called Gyimantwi Enterprise. Prior to the dismissal, a disciplinary hearing was held into the source of his authority to give immediate value to bank cheques sent for clearing between 1st January 2007 and April 2008 contrary to laid down policies of the bank.
FACTS:
The appellant challenged his dismissal by a writ at the High Court, Accra. He sought a declaration that his dismissal was unlawful, reinstatement with full benefits, compensation for unlawful dismissal, damages, costs, and solicitor’s fees, In the alternative, he asked for payment of his end of service benefits from 20th May 2009, interest on the amount at the prevailing commercial bank rate and any other reliefs the court may deem fit. He contended that entries he passed to disburse the loan facility for the purchase of a vehicle by the bank’s customer and letters he wrote or co-signed to the bank’s customer were under the instructions of the bank’s branch manager, Rev Duke Commey who was given authority by management to determine appellant’s duties.
The respondent disputed this assertion and insisted that appellant failed to comply with the staff responsibilities as set out in his appointment letter, bank’s books of instructions, service rules, circulars, policy guidelines and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Additionally, respondent says the appellant perpetuated fraud against the bank when he accepted cash inducement from the customer of the bank to conceal his cheques thereby causing financial loss to the bank. The respondent, therefore, counterclaimed for the sum of Ghc227,765.94 being the claim made against the bank by the customer for dereliction of duty and damages for loss of business and reputational damage.
After a full trial, the High Court presided over by Laurenda Owusu J on 4th July 2016 dismissed the appellant’s claim. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which on 18th June 2019 unanimously dismissed the appellant’s appeal. The current appeal before the apex court is the r