ISAAC ARYEE ARYEEQUAYE v. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, GHANA PRISONS SERVICE & THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- KANYOKE, JA (PRESIDING)
- ADUAMA OSEI, JA
- SOWAH, JA
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Employment Law
- Evidence Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff challenged his dismissal from the Ghana Prisons Service, claiming the enquiry that led to his dismissal violated section 19(3) of the Prisons Service Act and that there was an error in recording that he pleaded guilty. The trial court ruled in his favor, stating the disciplinary enquiry was invalid in the absence of regulations under section 19(3). On appeal, the appellate court emphasized that the absence of specific regulations did not invalidate disciplinary proceedings if conducted fairly, adhering to principles of natural justice. Concluding the trial courts decision was overly literal and unsupported by evidence that the proceedings were unfair, the appellate court set aside the ruling, thereby dismissing the Plaintiff's claims.
ADUAMA OSEI
In this judgment, the Plaintiff/Respondent will be called “the Plaintiff”, and the Defendants/Appellants will be called “the Defendants”.
By his writ of summons issued in the High Court, Accra, on the 27th of June, 2007, the Plaintiff sought against the Defendants a declaration that “since the Minister for Interior has not complied with section 19 sub section 3 of the Prison Service Act, 1972 the service enquiry held at the Wa Central Prisons in which plaintiff was found guilty and later dismissed is null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever”. The Plaintiff sought a further declaration that “since the plaintiff did not plead guilty to count 3, it was wrong for the panel to have stated in the record of proceedings that the plaintiff pleaded guilty”. This was in view of the Plaintiff’s contention in the action that even though he did not plead guilty to count 3 during the service enquiry, the panel that carried out the enquiry wrongly recorded him as having done so. Other reliefs sought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants were general damages for wrongful dismissal and an order “directing the defendants to pay all benefits due to plaintiff forthwith”.
The service enquiry which the Plaintiff sought to challenge in his action was brought about by an allegation made against him by a prisoner. After the Regional Prisons authorities at Wa had received the said allegation, they asked the Plaintiff to submit a statement in response and the institution of the service enquiry followed receipt by the authorities of the Plaintiff’s statement. At the service enquiry, the Plaintiff faced charges for 3 offences under the Prisons Service Act, 1972 (NRCD 46) and his dismissal was based on the outcome of the enquiry.
The Plaintiff’s contention however was that the enquiry on which his dismissal was based was a nullity because at the time it was conducted, section 19 sub section 3 of the Prisons Service Act, 1972 (NRCD 46) had not been complied with. As noted above, the Plaintiff also contended that he had been wrongly recorded as having pleaded guilty to count 3 of the charges he faced at the enquiry. The Defendants countered the Plaintiff’s position by insisting that the Plaintiff pleaded guilty to count 3, and contending that the proceedings at the enquiry were carried out under section 18(3) of NRCD 46 and were proper and valid.
From the rival positions of the parties, the issues that arose for determination by the trial Court were:
“a) Whether