NYARKO AND ANOTHER vs. BANK OF GHANA [1973]DLHC2334

Date	1973-06-05
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2334

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.

M. K. AYISI FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

C. QUIST FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1973]DLHC2334
																																						<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" >NYARKO AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>BANK OF GHANA <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;[1973]
1 GLR 70<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
5 JUNE 1972.<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">

M. K. AYISI FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<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">

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiffs by their writ of summons claim:<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">(a) a
declaration that the plaintiffs’ forced and involuntary resignations on 30 June
1967 were secured by the defendants in circumstances amounting to wrongful
dismissal;<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">(b)
reinstatement of the plaintiffs or in the alternative ¢100,000 (¢50,000 each)
damages for wrongful dismissal of the plaintiffs by the defendants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiffs filed a statement of claim in which they set out the grounds for
their claims. Briefly their case is that the first plaintiff was until 30 June
1967 a senior clerk employed by the Bank of Ghana having risen from a clerical
officer in 1959. He was on a salary of ¢1,400.00 per annum. The second
plaintiff who was on a salary of ¢1,960.00 per annum was a confirmed grade II
officer. Between August and September 1967, the first and second plaintiffs and
others were arrested on complaints of stealing made against them by the
defendants. They were arraigned before a circuit court but on 15 December 1967,
they were discharged and made prosecution witnesses. While the case was pending
in court, the defendants through the Governor of the Bank demanded and forced
the resignation of the plaintiffs in circumstances amounting to wrongful dismissal.
The first plaintiff was then 31 years of age and had served the bank for eight
years. The second plaintiff was 28 years of age and had served the bank for two
years. They claim that banking is a specialised career. They state in paragraph
(8) of their statement of claim that:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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">“wherefore
the first and second plaintiffs each claims ¢50,000 damages for wrongful
dismissal made up as follows: (i) Special damages:<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">(a)
¢320.04 being three months’ salary in lieu of notice at ¢106.68 per month. <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">(b)
¢120.00 bonus payable on 30 June 1967. (ii) general damages— ¢49,559.96.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Order 20,
r. 4 of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A),
provides that whenever a statement of claim is delivered the plaintiff may
alter, modify or extend his claim without any amendment of the endorsement of
the writ. Cargill v. Bower (1876) 4 Ch.D. 78 is authority for the proposition
that where the plaintiff in his statement of claim drops any cause of action
mentioned or any relief claimed on the writ, he will be deemed to have elected
to abandon it. This was followed by Swinfen Eady J. in Lewis and Lewis v.
Durnford (1907) 24 T.L.R. 64. The plaintiffs here make no mention of their
claim for a declaration that they were wrongfully dismissed, and also of their
claim for reinstatement. These reliefs are therefore deemed abandoned and
nothing further need be said about them. We are left with the claim for damages
for wrongful dismissal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>