ANDOH vs. AMANSIE LOCAL COUNCIL AND OTHERS [1966]DLHC1650

Date	1966-04-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLHC1650

ATTOH J.

A. MMIEH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

DEFENDANTS IN PERSON.

[1966]DLHC1650
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >ANDOH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>AMANSIE LOCAL COUNCIL AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 321<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
20 APRIL 1966.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

A. MMIEH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

ATTOH J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ATTOH J.<o:p></o:p>This is a
case in which the plaintiff claims against the defendants jointly and severally
(1) £G800 damages for wrongful dismissal from the defendants’ employment as
market clerk; and (ii) £G519 11s. 8d. being arrears of salary for the period of
29 months from May 1962 to September 1964 at the rate of £G17 18s. 4d.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>When
pleadings were closed the issues for trial were settled as those in the summons
for directions. The plaintiff in evidence said that he was employed as a market
clerk by the defendants at a monthly salary of £G17 18s. 4d. Some time in 1962
he said he was charged with embezzling the sum of about £G1,000 before a
circuit court at Kumasi. He was tried, convicted and sentenced to two years’
imprisonment with hard labour. During the trial he was interdicted with effect
from 1 May 1962. He appealed to the Supreme Court against his conviction and
sentence and the appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence were
quashed, a verdict of not guilty entered, and he was acquitted and discharged
by the Supreme Court on 15 July 1963 (reported sub nom. Andoh v. Commissioner
of Police1). Fifteen months after the appeal he received (from the defendants)
exhibit B, dated 8 September 1964, dismissing him with retrospective effect
from 1 May 1962, the date of interdiction. The plaintiff therefore claims as in
his writ of summons and statement of claim. The defence filed admitted
dismissing the plaintiff but alleged that the defendants were not obliged to
pay the plaintiff’s salary or to re-instate him. They deny wrongful dismissal
of the plaintiff and relied on section 124 of the Local Government Act, 1961.2<o:p></o:p>In
evidence the representative of the defendants said the plaintiff was surcharged
with the sum of £G1064 18s. 10d. and was notified of this but he replied to say
he would not pay. This was never pleaded and there is no counterclaim before
the court for this amount. It appears from the evidence that although the
defendants stated in exhibit B that the plaintiff was dismissed “for gross
negligence of duty,” this has not been proved by the defendants. The burden is
on the defendants to justify the dismissal and to prove the gross negligence
alleged in exhibit B. The representative of the defendants does not seem to
know much about the case. All the allegations of the defendants in their
statement of defence have not been proved or substantiated before this court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Reading
the judgment of the Supreme Court, exhibit A, it does not appear anywhere in
that judgment that the Supreme Court found any conclusive evidence against the
accused (the plaintiff in this case). Indeed the Supreme Court found that other
people were involved especially the fourth and fifth prosecution witnesses and
that someone was “facing a charge concerning” the missing receipt books of the
council.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Indeed if
the defendants have a claim after the disposal of the criminal case, they could
have counterclaimed when the plaintiff brought this action instead of merely
stating that he was surcharged with £G1064 18s. 10d. which has not even been
pleaded.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff has been found not guilty by the highest court in Ghana, the Supreme
Court. His innocence has been established. The defendants have failed to prove
gross negligence alleged in exhibit B. They have not established any other
excuse for dismissing the plaintiff. I am satisfied that the plaintiff was
wrongfully dismissed by the defendants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I now
come to consider whether the defendants are bound to pay the plaintiff his
salary as claimed by the plaintiff. There is no evidence as to any written
terms of employment between the plaintiff and the defendants except that the
plaintiff was employed as a market collector at a monthly salary of £G17 18s.
4d. The Local Government (Local and Urban Council Staff) Regulations, 1962,3
has been referred to in issue (16) of the summons for directions. I can therefore
safely presume, and I am right in presuming, that these regulation</main>