MISS SUSAN DOWKOR FOR MICHAEL AMAFU-DEI FOR RESPONDENT
1999
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- Wood, J.A. (Presiding)
- Benin, J.A.
- Afreh, J.A
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Administrative Law
1999
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Ghana Court of Appeal, per Wood, J.A. (presiding), with Benin, J.A., and Afreh, J.A., addressed an employment-termination dispute arising from SSNITs letter of 19 June 1992 that ended the appellants appointment for using unacceptable language in response to a query, said to contravene Trust procedures. SSNIT paid termination benefits since it was not a summary dismissal. The appellant sought a declaration of nullity, reinstatement, or damages, alleging misapplication of rules, improper disciplinary committee composition and an unauthorised signatory. A preliminary objection to the respondents late written answer under C.I. 19 r.20 was rejected; the Court held it could enlarge time and r.20(8) only barred parties who filed nothing. On the merits, the Court found Exhibit 2 (Senior Staff Rules of Service) governed the appellant, Exhibit F (collective agreement) applied to junior staff, Exhibit 2 was admissible (no stamp/seal required under PNDCL 247), the committee lawfully included departmental representatives, and management authorized termination with the manager merely conveying the decision. The appeal was dismissed.
REASONS
WOOD, J.A.:
We dismissed this appeal from the decision of Her Honour Miss A.M.A. Dzordzie, as she then was sitting at the Accra Circuit court and reserved our reasons. We now give them. The facts giving rise to this action are simple and devoid of any complex legal issues. Not unsurprisingly, the evidence led on both sides is equally straightforward and brief. It is therefore surprising that this appeal is based not only on five main grounds but raises also very many issues of law, some of which were never raised at the trial.
The facts which led to the commencement of these proceedings are that by a letter dated 19th June, 1992, the respondent corporation wrote to the appellant, terminating his appointment with the respondent. The letter indicated the grounds upon which the termination was based. It was alleged that, in answering a query sent to him he had “used unacceptable language in his replace to both the Regional Manager and Head of Personnel. Such conduct it was pointed out was "in contravention of the laid down procedure and regulations of the Trust" But, because the sanction imposed on him was a termination and not a summary dismissal, the respondent paid him all his just entitlements made up of his:
(1) The balance of his enhanced provident fund.
(2) Balance on Savings account,
(3) A long service award of ¢20.000.00
(4) Three (3) months Salary in lieu of notice. This of course was subject to whatever moneys he owed the trust and or other institutions, the Social Security Bank Ltd included.
Not in the least satisfied with this turn of events, he sued the respondents:
(a) a declaration that the termination was a nullity.
(b) Reinstatement or in the alternative damages for wrongful dismissal.
By the paragraph of his statement of claim, he complains that the termination was not only wrongful but incompetent and a complete nullity. The following were set out as the particulars.
First, that "as an officer Grade I the plaintiff cannot be terminated under Article 1 Sub-Section 7(a) of the defendants rules of service which does not apply to him.
Secondly, that the disciplinary Committee which investigated his conduct was not properly constituted and was in contravention of the laid-down procedure and regulations of the Trust in so far as two junior members of staff were made to sit on the committee and the termination letter was not signed by the General Manager (Administration), the officer authorised to do so under the regulations