REPUBLIC vs. GHANA CARGO HANDLING CO., LTD.; EX PARTEMOSES [1979]DLHC1107

Date	1979-02-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1107

MENSAH BOISON J.

E. K. AMANE FOR THE APPLICANT.

MRS. ADUSA-AMANKWAA PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1979]DLHC1107
																																						<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>GHANA CARGO HANDLING CO., LTD.; EX PARTEMOSES<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 206<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 FEBRUARY 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">

E. K. AMANE FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

MRS. ADUSA-AMANKWAA, PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY, FOR
THE RESPONDENTS.<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">

MENSAH BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>The
applicant is an employee of the Ghana Cargo Handling Co., Ltd., the first
respondents. The second respondent was an ad hoc committee of senior staff
constituted by the first respondents to inquire into an allegation of misbehaviour
against the applicant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this
application a rule absolute for certiorari is sought against the respondents to
quash, firstly, the proceedings of inquiry conducted by the second respondent,
and secondly, the decision of the first respondents reducing the applicant in
rank and salary. The decision of the first respondents is contained in a letter
exhibited as B in the affidavit in support, and the proceedings of the
committee, tendered as a result of the ex parte hearing.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By the
affidavit the applicant was, until October 1977, a traffic research officer
which post was of a zonal managerial grade. In about December 1977, the
applicant was given a new schedule of the grade of terminal manager, which was
lower in status. In connection with his new posting, the applicant wrote two
letters addressed to the managing director, dated 4 and 13 January 1978
respectively, protesting against his new posting, in answer to a query. These
letters are respectively exhibited as A and B, in the respondents’ affidavit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first
respondents took indignant exception to the language of the letter exhibit A,
as being rude and insulting, and eventually led to the setting up of a
committee, i.e. the second respondent, appointed by the first respondents to
investigate the conduct of the applicant and to submit its report.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
recommendation of the second respondent does not appear to have been exhibited.
But from the submission of counsel for the applicant, the committee appears to
have treated the matter as domestic, and tendered a recommendation that the
management accepts the apology of the applicant and give him a warning only.
The management’s decision exhibit B to reduce the applicant in rank and salary
was therefore least expected, and has led to this motion.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
grounds upon which the order is moved, as appear in the statement, are
amorphous and far from succinct, bordering on the nature of an affidavit. It is
as well to draw attention that by Order 59, r. 3 (2) of the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), the facts should be deposed to in an
affidavit and not on the statement accompanying the motion: see R. v.
Wandsworth Justices; Ex parte Read [1942] 1 K.B. 281, D.C. From the submissions
of learned counsel for the motion it was possible to glean therefrom the
following grounds:<o:p></o:p>1. That the institution of the committee of inquiry and the
punishment meted out by the management were ultra vires the rules of the
company.<o:p></o:p>2. That the committee denied the applicant, a fair and full
hearing in breach of the audi alteram partem rule:<o:p></o:p>