RICHARD NSIAH-AGYEMANG vs KAKUM RURAL BANK LTD.
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE BERNARD BENTIL
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Evidence Law
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff, a former Manager of Kakum Rural Bank, alleged wrongful dismissal and claimed he was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself against accusations of financial malfeasance. The court found that the plaintiff did receive a fair hearing and that the dismissal was justified. It was also determined that the plaintiff was entitled to fifty per cent of his salary from the date of interdiction until the date of dismissal, with interest at the prevailing bank rate.
The Plaintiff per his Amended Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed on 20th January, 2020 is claiming against the Defendant the following reliefs: a. A declaration that the dismissal of the Plaintiff by the Defendant on 27th January, 2017 is wrongful; b. Reinstatement of the Plaintiff by the Defendant to his position at the Kakum Rural Bank; c. Payment of his salary and interest on it from 26th January, 2015 being the date of his interdiction to the date of final payment; d. Damages for wrongful dismissal; and e. Costs including lawyer’s fees.
The genesis of the instant action is quite straightforward.
The Plaintiff avers that until recently, he held the position of Manager overseeing Finance and Administration at the Kakum Rural Bank in Elmina, Cape Coast (hereinafter referred to as "the Defendant"). On 26th January 2015, the Plaintiff was served with a letter from the Board of the Defendant Bank, notifying him of his interdiction.
Notably, prior to this interdiction, no formal inquiry or allegations of misconduct had been proffered against him during the course of his duties at the Kakum Rural Bank.
The Plaintiff contends that notwithstanding the assertion made in the interdiction correspondence, stipulating his entitlement to Fifty percent (50%) of his salary during the period of interdiction, no such remuneration has been forthcoming to date.
Per the Plaintiff's narrative, subsequent to his interdiction, he received verbal summons from the Economic and Organized Crime Office (EOCO) on 24th February 2015. Upon his attendance, he was instructed to present himself again on 3rd March 2015, during which occasion he was formally furnished with an official summons by the Cape Coast Branch of EOCO, wherein he was charged with financial malfeasance at the Defendant Bank and subsequently granted bail.
EOCO initiated investigations into the accusations of financial impropriety levelled against the Plaintiff by the Defendant Bank, subsequently summoning him on multiple occasions for confrontation and interrogation before a panel composed of EOCO officials.
The Plaintiff further contends that on 4th September 2015, he was summoned by the Cape Coast branch of the Criminal Investigations Department of the Ghana Police Service for interrogation, subsequent to which he was granted bail pending further police inquiries.
Since the commencement of his interdiction, the Plaintiff has dutifully adhered to summons by EOCO until 13th October 2016, when he recei