May 30, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Gideon Delali Deklu, an EOCO staff member, challenged EOCO’s July 6, 2018 directive to Ghana Commercial Bank Limited (GCB) to withhold payment of his salary into his account, seeking certiorari and defreezing of account number 1011120000159. Deklu argued EOCO’s letter amounted to an unlawful freezing order under Act 804/L.I. 2183 and breached natural justice, and claimed GCB violated the banker-customer relationship by obeying the directive. EOCO contended Deklu absented himself from his post in Wa after his leave lapsed on March 29, 2018, and that the directive was an administrative stoppage authorized by the Financial Administration Act and Regulations; a disciplinary committee later recommended his dismissal. The Court held the directive was not a freezing order but a lawful salary stoppage under Regulations 298/299, found no breach of natural justice, and concluded GCB’s duty to pay was subject to lawful directives. Certiorari was refused and the application dismissed, with costs awarded to both respondents.
On the 30th of August, 2018, the Applicant instituted the instant action invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to Article 141 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992 and Order 55 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C. I. 47) against the Executive Director, Economic and Organised Crime office, the Attorney General and the Ghana Commercial Bank Limited as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents respectively.
A supplementary to the original motion was filed on 16th October, 2018. The Court, on the 7th of November, 2018, pursuant to Order 4 Rule 5 (2) (a) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C. I. 47) non-suited the Attorney General, the 2nd Respondent.
The basis for the non-suit was by reason of the fact that the claim of the Applicant is essentially against the 1st Respondent which per its creating statute (the Economic and Organised Crime Act, 2010 (ACT 804) is autonomous in that it can sue and be sued.
Further, the claim of the Applicant does not establish a cause of action against the Attorney General.
Following the non-suit of the Attorney General and upon an order of the Court on the Applicant, the application was amended on 11th February, 2019, as against two Respondents; the Executive Director, Economic and Organised Crime Office, as the 1st Respondent and the Ghana Commercial Bank Limited, as the 2nd Respondent.
The Applicant per his amended motion, prayed the Court for a sole relief: An order of the Court to quash the decision of the Executive Director contained in a letter number EOCO/ED/029/V. 122/15 dated 6th July, 2018 and an order directed at the bank to lift the embargo or defreeze the account number 1011120000159.
THE BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION.
On the 6th of July, 2018, the 1st Respondent wrote a letter to the 2nd Respondent Bank instructing the latter to withhold payment of the Applicant‟s salary until it directs otherwise.
The events leading to the issuance of this letter is what has brought the parties before this Court.
THE CASE OF THE APPLICANT.
The Applicant filed an amended motion supported by an affidavit and a statement of case on 11th February, 2019. The Applicant‟s grievance, per his application, is in two folds; first, against the 1st Respondent for placing an embargo on his account and secondly, against the 2nd Respondent for complying with this order of the 1st Respondent, in breach of the banker-customer relationship between them.
THE APPLICANT’S GRIEVANCE WITH