REPUBLIC vs. GHANA RAILWAY CORPORATION; EX PARTE APPIAH AND ANOTHER [1980]DLHC1629

Date	1980-09-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLHC1629

TWUMASI J.

GAISIE ZWENNES AND HUGHES FOR THE APPLICANTS.

BONSU FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1980]DLHC1629
																																						<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>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>GHANA RAILWAY CORPORATION; EX PARTE APPIAH AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI] <o:p></o:p>[1980] GLR 752<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:
30 SEPTEMBER 1981<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">

GAISIE, ZWENNES AND HUGHES FOR THE APPLICANTS.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TWUMASI J.<o:p></o:p>The
matter before this court involves the Ghana Railway Corporation and two members
of the senior staff of the corporation. They are Joseph Emmanuel Appiah, Deputy
Chief Internal Auditor and David Armah Annan, Chief Accountant, respectively.
These two senior officers say that on 15 August 1981, the corporation reduced
their official ranks from deputy chief internal auditor to principal internal
auditor in the case of Mr. Appiah, and from chief accountant to deputy chief
accountant in the case of Mr. Annan. In Appiah’s case, the reduction in rank
was to be operative for a period of two years with effect from 17<o:p></o:p>August
1981. In the case of Mr. Annan, there was also a consequential order
transferring him with immediate effect to the accounts department on special
duties. Naturally, these two gentlemen did not take the matter kindly with the
corporation because their punishment brought to them not only humiliation and
disgrace, but was destined to cause them some financial loss in salary and
other entitlements. They therefore quickly picked up a grudge against the
corporation in this court.<o:p></o:p>Their
case is that they and other senior members of staff were given notice to appear
before a board of inquiry set up by the corporation to scrutinise a certain
transaction relating to purchasing and stores during the period November 1980
to March 1981. They attended the investigation and answered questions put to
them by the committee. It appears from the evidence that the board of directors
imposed the penalty complained of upon the basis of the report of the board of
inquiry. The keg upon which the case of the applicants is perched can be found
in paragraphs (6) to (10) of their affidavits in support of the application for
an order of certiorari to quash the penalty imposed upon them by the board of
directors. These are that:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“(6) The board had no authority or right to
effect reduction in our ranks without a proper inquiry held on specific charges
preferred against us. <o:p></o:p>(7) By
virtue of the conditions of service for senior staff, the board’s primary duty
is to call upon an officer involved in writing, to show cause why he should not
be reduced in rank with the facts of the case to enable the officer to reply to
it. <o:p></o:p>(8) This
provision in the condition of service was not followed. <o:p></o:p>(9) Ghana
Railway Corporation was part of the Civil Service before it was turned into a
corporation. <o:p></o:p>(10) By
the Civil Service (Interim) Regulations, 1960 (L.I. 47), which is saved by the
conditions of service for senior staff, a written charge should be preferred in
all proceedings against the officer involved who should be given the
opportunity in formal proceedings to call witnesses in his defence.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the applicants read article 24 (1) of the conditions of service for senior
staff which is:<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">“24. (1)
Unless and until the authority declares otherwise, all existing rules,
regulations, manuals and instructions not specifically declared at the time of
the conversion into the Authority to be obsolete, ineffective or inoperative
shall be deemed to be in force until reviewed or declared obsolete, ineffective
or inoperative by the authority.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>