KWAPONG AND OTHERS vs. GHANA COCOA MARKETING BOARD AND OTHERS AMOH vs. GHANA COCOA MARKETING BOARD AND OTHERS (CONSOLIDATED) [1984]DLHC935

KWAPONG AND OTHERS vs. GHANA COCOA MARKETING BOARD AND OTHERS AMOH vs. GHAN... [1984]DLHC935

Date	1984-08-09
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1984]DLHC935

OSEI-HWERE JA

J K AGYEMAN (WITH HIM AGYEMAN-BEMPA) FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

R I QUANSAH FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1984]DLHC935
																																						<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">

KWAPONG AND OTHERS &nbsp;&nbsp;vs. &nbsp;GHANA
COCOA MARKETING BOARD <o:p></o:p>

OTHERS AMOH vs. GHANA
COCOA MARKETING BOARD AND OTHERS (CONSOLIDATED)<o:p></o:p>

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

[1984-86] 1 GLR 74<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
9 AUGUST 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">

J
K AGYEMAN (WITH HIM AGYEMAN-BEMPA) FOR THE PLAINTIFFS. <o:p></o:p>

R
I QUANSAH FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<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">

OSEI-HWERE JA<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE JA<o:p></o:p>At all
material times the first plaintiff in suit No 556/80 was the deputy managing
director of the Cocoa Marketing Co, and the second plaintiff, the principal
public relations officer of the first defendants; the plaintiff in suit No
555/80 was the chief public relations officer of the first defendants; the
first plaintiff in suit No 554/80 was the solicitor-secretary of the first
defendants; and the second plaintiff was the director of special projects of
the first defendants. They all claim, in addition, that they were public
officers in the public service of Ghana. On or about 30 October 1979, the
defendants issued a circular letter, exhibit B, whereby they notified each of
the plaintiffs, among others, that adverse findings were reported against them
by the Archer Committee of Enquiry which investigated the affairs of the Ghana
Cocoa Marketing Board, and that if they so desired they should appeal against
the said findings by representations to the special tribunal set up by the
AFRC; exhibit B was specifically dated 30 October 1979. On the very next day,
ie 31 October 1979, the defendants, through the second defendant, notified each
of the plaintiffs that as a result of the acceptance of the findings and
recommendations of the Archer Committee of Enquiry the board was being
re-organised and that the re-organisation had rendered the services of each of
the plaintiffs redundant. The plaintiffs were therefore to be retired from the
services of the first defendants with immediate effect and to vacate the first
defendants’ premises occupied by them by 31 December 1979. Three of the letters
were admitted in evidence as exhibits E, E1 and E2.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 14
November 1979 the second defendant, on behalf of the defendants, issued a press
statement, exhibit H, which, among other matters, gave reasons for retiring the
plaintiffs and others from the service of the first defendants. The said
reasons were alleged to stem from the adverse findings made against them by the
Archer Committee Report and the acceptance of the committee’s findings and
recommendations. The alleged adverse findings were, in fact, subsequently set
aside by the special tribunal see exhibits D, D1-D4. At the date of their
compulsory retirement each plaintiff was below the age of 50 and, therefore,
not due for retirement from the public service<o:p></o:p>They
complain that their purported removal or retirement from office by the defendants
is wrongful and without just cause. They further say that the AFRC issued a
white paper on the Archer Committee Report whereby the government directed that
the Cocoa Marketing Board is to be replaced by a Cocoa Council and further that
all senior officers of the Cocoa Marketing Board and its affiliated bodies who
had not been dismissed were to be redeployed outside the cocoa industry on the
formation of the council. They say that the Cocoa Council has not been formed
and they cannot be redeployed prior to the formation of that council. They
claim that by virtue of their offices with the first defendants they are
entitled to be housed by the first defendants. The plaintiffs finally complain
that the first defendants have failed to pay to each one of them their salaries
and other entitlements as employees of the first defendants since specified
dates in 1980. Wherefore they claim against the defendants the following
reliefs: “(a) Declaration that the retirement of each of them by the defendants
is wrongful; (b) Declaration that they are still employees of the first
defendants, (c) An order against the defendants for payment to each plaintiff
his salaries and allowances as from the specified dates and at the specified
rates; (d) An order that the defendants reinstate each to his substantive post;
and (e) An injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents or
workmen or both from ejecting the plaintiffs from the first defendants’
bungalows provided for their use.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first
defendants were at all material times (and they still are) a public corporation
and the second, third and fourth defendants were at all material times members
of the interim management committee of the first defendants, with the second
defendant as its chairman. Counsel for the defendants accepts the basic
background of the case for the plaintiffs except that as employees of the first
defendants they all became subject to the staff rules and regulations of which
the latest edition was published in 1979. According to him the plaintiffs were
r</main>