ARKHURST vs. GHANA MUSEUM AND MONUMENTS BOARD [1971]DLHC2080

Date	1971-02-26
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLHC2080

ABBAN J.

K. A. MENSAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

BRUCE FOR AGBETTO FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1971]DLHC2080
																																						<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" >ARKHURST<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>GHANA MUSEUM AND MONUMENTS BOARD <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1971] 2 GLR 1<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:
26 FEBRUARY 1971.<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">

K. A.
MENSAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

BRUCE FOR
AGBETTO FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ABBAN J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff in this action claims general damages for wrongful dismissal and the
recovery of certain benefits to which he is entitled under the pension scheme
established by the defendants. The writ of summons reads as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“Recovery
of liquidated amounts of benefits under Staff Pension Scheme Policy No.
A/2/97466/7/8 and Policy No. G/97466/8 under Assurance Society all totalling
N¢1,303.82 and general damages for wrongful dismissal of the plaintiff by the
defendants.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff in his evidence averred that by a letter dated 26 June 1957, the
defendants employed him as a museum assistant with effect from 1 July 1957. By
virtue of this appointment the plaintiff joined the staff pension scheme established
by the defendants. He said as an employee of the defendants, he came to know
which objects are classified as relics and that relics have been defined in the
Ghana Museum and Monuments Board Ordinance, 1957 (No. 20 of 1957). According to
the plaintiff while in the defendants’ employment, he exported wood carvings,
wooden dolls and adinkra stamps, but he denied that these were relics as
defined in section 2 of the Ordinance No. 20 of 1957. <o:p></o:p>That
definition reads:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“ ‘relic’
means- (a) any fossil of any kind; (b) any ancient drawing, engraving or
painting on stone or petroglyph of archaeological, ethnographical or historic
interest; (c) any ancient implement, article or ornament of archaeological,
ethnographical or historic interest; and (d) any archaeological or
ethnographical contents of any ancient monument or ancient working.”<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff averred further that before the defendants terminated his appointment
he was interdicted for having exported African antiques and for absenting
himself from duty and drawing a salary for that period of absence. These
allegations were gone into by Mr. Asiedu Akrofi as an inquiry officer appointed
by the defendants and the plaintiff was completely exonerated. The plaintiff
said the police were also called in to investigate the alleged exportation of
the African antiques and again nothing was found against him. But thereafter,
without any cause, he received from the defendants a letter dated 30 December
1966, terminating his appointment by giving him one month’s salary in lieu of
notice. He stated that the defendants have also unjustifiably withheld the
payment of his pension benefits under the staff pension scheme. Hence this
action.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff’s witness, Mr. Asiedu Akrofi, said his inquiry did not relate to the
alleged exportation of relics or African antiques by the plaintiff; and so he
never made any findings in that regard. Mr. Akrofi further stated that his
terms of reference covered two matters, namely, (a) whether the plaintiff
unreasonably absented himself from duty; and (b) knowing that he was absent he,
nevertheless, without excuse, drew salaries for the period during which he was
absent. He said he found in favour of the plaintiff and submitted his findings
(exhibit F) to the defendants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
pla</main>