GHANA COCOA MARKETING BOARD vs. AGBETTOH AND OTHERS [1984]DLCA915

Date	1984-11-08
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1984]DLCA915

APALOO CJ

FRANCOIS JA

ABBAN JA

QUANSAH FOR THE APPELLANTS.

KWAME TETTEH FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1984]DLCA915
																																						<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">

GHANA COCOA MARKETING
BOARD <o:p></o:p>

{COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 1 GLR 122<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
8 NOVEMBER, 1984<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">

QUANSAH 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 0in 0in">

APALOO CJ, FRANCOIS AND ABBAN JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO CJ<o:p></o:p>Apaloo
C.J. delivered the judgment of the Court. The respondents (hereinafter referred
to as the plaintiffs) were until 26 November 1979 employees of the appellant
board. They all held very senior positions and the evidence shows that they enjoyed
the full confidence of the board. Just under a fortnight before their removal
or the purported termination of their appointments, two of the plaintiffs, the
first and third plaintiffs, were rewarded with promotions. The professed reason
for their retirement was that “a re-organisation exercise was currently going
on.” Their so-called retirement was “to take immediate effect.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It seems
a little odd that if this was the true reason, this fact should not have been
known before their promotions. Mr Mumuni Bawumia, the self-same chairman of the
interim management committee of the board, who communicated the glad tidings of
their promotion to the plaintiffs on 13 November 1979, conveyed the painful
news of their retirement to them on the 26 idem. The plaintiffs were servants
of the appellant board (hereinafter referred to as the defendant board) and had
severally entered into written contracts of personal service with it.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
available evidence shows that save salaries, the board had a stereotype type of
letter of appointment and in it provision is made by which the board can
dispense with the plaintiffs’ services. The latter have a corresponding right.
For instance, clause 7 of the first plaintiff’s letter of appointment (exhibit
6) provides that:<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">“The appointment
may be terminated by either party on giving three months’ notice or payment of
three months’ salary in lieu of notice. The Board, however, reserves the right
to dismiss you summarily on grounds of indiscipline and inefficiency.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
charge of indiscipline or inefficiency cannot truthfully be levelled against
the plaintiffs. As we said, at least two were promoted just a fortnight before
their removal.<o:p></o:p>So their
abrupt and hardly just termination or retirement must be put to a cause other
than indiscipline or inefficiency. The proffered ground that their services had
to be dispensed with because of a re-organisation was hardly credible. If this
was the case, it would have been a grave policy matter which the board could
not have been unaware of when two of the plaintiffs were rewarded for what, we
can only conclude, was their loyal and meritorious services. At all events, the
learned judge was unable to accept that as the true ground for their enforced
retirement. There is no suggestion that the chairman of the interim management
committee had any particular aversion for the plaintiffs or took any servants
whose integrity and competence were in doubt. But all human conduct is inspired
by some motive.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiffs say the chairman retired or purported to retire them in pursuance of
the implementation or purported implementation of paragraph 35 of a government
white paper on the report of the Archer Committee of Enquiry into the Affairs
of the Ghana Cocoa Marketing Board popularly called, the Archer Report. Since a
great deal of discussion both in the court below and before us turned on a
proper interpretation of this paragraph, it is necessary to set it out in full.
It reads:<o:p></o:p>