REPUBLIC vs. STATE HOTELS CORPORATION; EX PARTE YEBOAH AND OTHERS [1979]DLCA1114

Date	1979-11-15
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLCA1114

JIAGGE JA

ARCHER JA

EDUSEI J.A.

ZWENNES FOR THE APPELLANTS.

E. K. K. AKRASI FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1979]DLCA1114
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>STATE HOTELS CORPORATION; EX PARTE YEBOAH<o:p></o:p>AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 875<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:
15 NOVEMBER 1979<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

ZWENNES FOR THE APPELLANTS.<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 1.0pt 0in">

JIAGGE, ARCHER AND EDUSEI JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.A.<o:p></o:p>By the
judgment of the High Court, Sekondi, presided over by Sarkodee J. and dated 6
July 1977, the proceedings of a board of inquiry of 6 September 1976, and the
decision by the appellants to dismiss the respondents herein were quashed by an
order of certiorari. It is against this judgment that the State Hotels
Corporation have lodged this appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I think a
resume of the facts of this case may assist in the elucidation of the reasons
about to be given in support of the judgment of this appeal. In my view this
appeal also raises a very significant point of law of great interest to both
employer and employee.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondents in this case were employees of the State Hotels Corporation and
were posted to Atlantic Hotel, Takoradi. On a certain date Frank Yeboah, an
accounts clerk at Atlantic Hotel, the first respondent, received 1,512 1bs. of
potatoes meant for the said hotel at 70p. per 1b. from a certain gentleman
called Ibrahim. The first respondent with the assistance of the other
respondents sold the same potatoes to the hotel at the inflated price of ¢1 per
1b. thus making a profit of 30p. per 1b. for themselves. The cheque for ¢1,512
was made out in the assumed name of Kwaku Yeboah which turned to be the first
respondent. Ibrahim received ¢1,058.40 as representing the sale price of his
1,512 1bs. potatoes at 70p. per 1b. The balance of ¢453.60 was shared in
various proportions among the respondents with the chef, Mr. Antoine Yampane,
receiving the lion’s share of the booty. The deal subsequently surfaced, and
the State Hotels Corporation appointed a board of inquiry which heard the
respondents and submitted a report to the managing director who, by his letter
of 6 December 1976, summarily dismissed the respondents. The respondents in no
uncertain terms admitted their guilt in the deal to defraud the State Hotels
Corporation. I wish to interpolate here by adverting to what the trial judge
said in his judgment, i.e. “In the course of their evidence they tendered
statements which they had previously made (statements which indeed incriminated
them).” (The emphasis is mine.) It was against their dismissal that the
respondents sought via certiorari to quash both the report of the board of
inquiry and the decision to dismiss them. In their supporting affidavit their
chief complaint was couched in paragraphs (8), (9) and (10) thus:<o:p></o:p>“(8) That we were not allowed to cross-examine each other
and none of us knew what other persons said before the board. <o:p></o:p>(9) That we were not put on trial nor told of any offences
we had committed to enable us to put up a defence for ourselves at the said
board of inquiry. <o:p></o:p>(10) That we received letters dated 6 December 1976
terminating our appointments with the State Hotels Corporation as a result of
the report of the said board of inquiry (copy of letter of dismissal attached
and marked exhibit C).”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
arguments of counsel for the respondents in the court below seem to have
weighed heavily with the trial judge, and he gave the order sought basing his
decision on the ground that there was a breach of natural justice.<o:p></o:p>