REPUBLIC vs. NATIONAL INVESTMENT BANK; EX PARTE CANTIL [1982]DLHC993

Date	1982-03-26
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1982]DLHC993

ANSAH-TWUM J

QUASHIE FOR THE APPLICANT.

MUSTAPHA (WITH HIM BUADU) FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1982]DLHC993
																																						<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" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>

{HIGH COURT, SEKONDI} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 1 GLR 237<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
26 MARCH 1982<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">

QUASHIE
FOR THE APPLICANT. <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">

ANSAH-TWUM J<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ANSAH-TWUM J.<o:p></o:p>Pursuant
to leave granted by this court on 25 January 1982 this application has been
brought by the applicant herein, asking for an order of certiorari to “remove
the dismissal of the applicant by the National Investment Bank on 31 July 1981,
to the High Court, Sekondi to be quashed upon the grounds set forth in the
affidavit served herewith...”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It seems
to me that the main grounds for this application can be found in paragraphs 2,
3,8, 9 and 10 of the affidavit in support, and I do, therefore, reproduce same
for easy reference:<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">“2. That
until 1 July 1981, I was employed as an assistant manager at the National
Investment Bank, Takoradi and that my appointment was on the said date
terminated by the bank by a letter signed by the Director of Administration of
the said bank which stated, inter alia, `....it has been decided to dismiss you
and you are hereby dismissed summarily from the bank . . .’ A copy of the said
letter is attached hereto and marked A. 3. That my employment with the National
Investment Bank was governed by the `Rules of Service and Pay’ which is a
compedia of rules and regulations affecting senior members of staff of the said
bank-A copy of the rules and regulations is attached hereto and marked B . . .
8. That it is provided by article 32 of the Rules of Service and Pay thus:
‘when an employee has committed an offence for which he may be summarily
dismissed, he shall be given notice in writing outlining the offence committed
and shall be allowed 24 hours to reply in writing to such notice and defend
himself. 9. That up to the time of swearing to this affidavit I had neither
been served with any notice, outlining any offence I had committed, nor had I
been invited to appear before any committee of inquiry as required by article
32 of the Rules of Service and Pay. 10. That I was neither interviewed by the
investigators referred to in exhibit C, nor did they refer any questions or
queries to me to be answered.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
applicant contends on these grounds that there has been a procedural
irregularity with regard to the action taken by the respondents, and they have
also infringed the rules of natural justice and, therefore, the purported
dismissal cannot stand and must be quashed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Arguing
the motion, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted, inter alia, that
the purported dismissal of the applicant must be held to be null and void since
the respondents failed to follow the procedure or rules laid down in the Rules
of Service and Pay referring particularly to article 32 which 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">“When an
employee has committed an offence for which he may be summarily dismissed, he
shall be given notice - in writing outlining the offence committed and shall be
allowed 24 hours to reply in writing to such notice and defend himself.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
submitted further that this also amounted to a breach of natural justice. That
the respondents took no steps to fulfil any of the laid down conditions before
they wrote the letter of dismissal. That this is wrong, and counsel cites Ridge
v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 at 50, HL. Failure to follow regulation renders the
decision a nullity.<o:p></o:p>