HORMEKU vs. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS [1981]DLHC2133

Date	1981-06-16
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1981]DLHC2133

ROGER KORSAH J.

TSATSU TSIKATA FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

NO APPEARANCE FOR OR BY THE DEFENDANT.

[1981]DLHC2133
																																						<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" >HORMEKU <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>DIRECTOR OF PRISONS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 354<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:
16 JUNE 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">

TSATSU TSIKATA FOR THE PLAINTIFF. <o:p></o:p>

NO APPEARANCE FOR OR BY THE DEFENDANT.<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">

ROGER KORSAH J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF KORSAH J.<o:p></o:p>Julius
Bessah Hormeku was an employee of the Ghana Prisons Service. His conditions of
employment included a provision that in cases of misconduct or unsatisfactory
service, disciplinary proceedings shall be conducted against him. Such
disciplinary proceedings shall be summary or commence with a written charge
preferred against the alleged offender; it shall enable the defendant in formal
proceedings to call appropriate witnesses; it shall enable persons to be
compellable to give evidence or produce exhibits in formal proceedings; and it
shall enable the defendant in any proceedings before the Director of Prisons or
other superior prisons officer or before the disciplinary board to appeal to
the Prisons Service Board within six weeks against any decision involving the
imposition of a penalty and providing that such penalty shall not take effect
until the appeal is determined: see section 19 of the Prisons Service Decree,
1972 (NRCD 46).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 22
July 1980 Julius Bessah Hormeku was at a parade at Wa Prison when the
superintendent of prisons handed to him what turned out to be a letter of
dismissal signed by the Director of Prisons. The letter 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">“Dear
Sir, <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
critical examination of the case preferred against you had revealed that the
charges have been established and you are found guilty. You are accordingly
dismissed from the service with immediate effect. If you wish to appeal to the
Prisons Service Council against this penalty, you are at liberty to do so
within six weeks from the date of receipt of this letter in accordance with NRCD
46, s. 19 (3)(d).”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Julius
Bessah Hormeku claims that before receiving this letter, he had not been
summoned to appear at any disciplinary proceedings to answer any of the charges
preferred against him. If that is so then the punishment imposed by the Director
of Prisons was meted out arbitrarily.<o:p></o:p>It is
obvious to me that the arbitrary exercise of the power to impose punishment is
clearly inconsistent with the conditions of service insisting on the observance
of the audi alteram partem rule at disciplinary proceedings as well as that
which gives a right of appeal to a defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In an
ordinary case, employers are legally entitled to dismiss their employees
provided the relevant facts and the express or implied terms of the relevant
contract of employment empower them to do so. If, however, an employer
wrongfully dismissed an employee, the employee could maintain an action only to
recover damages for wrongful dismissal, but not to obtain an order that he or
she should be reinstated or that the dismissal is null and void.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>With
regard to public officers, the framers of the Constitution, 1979, in their
wisdom, have provided that a public officer shall, except as otherwise provided
in the Constitution, retire from the public service on attaining the age of 60
years: see article 162 (1) of the Constitution, 1979.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>To secure
public officers their tenure of office under the changing vicissitudes of
politics, and to pro</main>