January 29, 2003
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Supreme Court appeal arose from CHRAJ’s enforcement application against Ghana Commercial Bank following its dismissal of branch manager R.S.A. Kwaku in 1984 for authorizing a 6.7 million cedi loan without head office approval and withholding his entitlements pending repayment. CHRAJ found discriminatory treatment because other managers who granted significantly larger loans were not terminated and recommended payment of Kwaku’s benefits. The High Court enforced the recommendation and the Court of Appeal largely affirmed. On further appeal, the Supreme Court held that while CHRAJ’s investigative jurisdiction over fundamental human rights violations extends to private enterprises and is not constrained by the Limitation Decree, court enforcement of CHRAJ decisions is subject to limitation under NRCD 54 and cannot grant remedies unavailable in law. Additionally, section 13(2)(a) of Act 456 imposes a twelve-month built-in time limit and CHRAJ should decline stale complaints, particularly those already investigated by credible bodies. The High Court was not obliged to re-hear CHRAJ matters or call for the investigation record absent necessity. The appeal was allowed, and enforcement denied.
BROBBEY, J.S.C.:
The facts that gave rise to this appeal are as follows; the appellant, the Ghana Commercial Bank, employed the complainant for some twenty-one years. In 1984, his appointment was terminated at a time when he was a manager of the bank. The reason for the termination was that he had contravened the regulations of the bank by granting a loan facility of six million and seven hundred thousand Cedis to a customer of the bank without prior approval from its head office. In addition to terminating the appointment, the appellant withheld the entitlements of the complainant until such time that the customer would pay the loan.
According to the complainant, he granted the facility in the normal course of business and after he had satisfied himself of the customer’s assets, the purpose for the loan and the viability of the customer’s business; the loan was also secured with assets of the customer worth twenty -five million Cedis.
Dissatisfied with the action taken against him, the complainant petitioned the Commissioner for Human Rights and Administrative Justice for redress.
After investigating the petition, the Commission decided in favour of the complainant by recommending that the appellant paid the complainant some sums of money. The appellant failed to comply with the recommendations of the Commission. To enforce its decision and recommendations, the Commission then applied to the High Court in the terms of the 1992 Constitution, art. 216 and the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice Act, 1993 (Act 456).
The application was made by originating summons or originating motion on notice and was supported by an affidavit together with the decision of the Commission. The appellant resisted the application by filing an affidavit in opposition. The court heard arguments from the Commission and the appellant, after which it endorsed the decision of the Commission. An order of enforcement was then issued. The appellant promptly appealed to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the High Court. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court, subject to some variations. Dissatisfied with that decision, the appellant appealed to this court on the following four grounds;
1. The judgment was not supported by law and the evidence adduced at the hearing.
2. The damages awarded by the court cannot be justified in law.
3. The trial court not having seen and examined the evidence adduced before the Commission, erred in s