PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, AGOGO vs. BOATENG [1986]DLCA961

Date	1986-03-04
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1986]DLCA961

FRANCOIS JSC

EDWARD WIREDU JA

OSEI-HWERE JA

S D ADDAI FOR THE APPELLANTS.

NO APPEARANCE BY OR FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1986]DLCA961
																																						<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">

PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL,
AGOGO<o:p></o:p>

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

[1984-86] 2 GLR 381<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
4 MARCH 1986<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">

S
D ADDAI FOR THE APPELLANTS. <o:p></o:p>

NO
APPEARANCE BY OR FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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">

FRANCOIS JSC, EDWARD WIREDU AND OSEI-HWERE JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGEMENT OF OSEI-HWERE J.A<o:p></o:p>The
subject matter of the action that gave birth to this appeal is simple and it
did not involve any difficult questions of fact and of law. The
plaintiff-respondent (to be described hereinafter as the plaintiff) sued out a
writ at the Circuit Court, Juaso and claimed: (a) damages for wrongful
dismissal; and (b) an order of perpetual injunction restraining the hospital
authorities, their servants, agents and workmen from forcibly removing the
plaintiff’s personal belongings from the nurses’ quarters.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Until the
date of her dismissal, the plaintiff was employed by the appellants (hereafter
called the defendants) as a senior nurse-midwife. On the night of 17 January
1981 the scene was set for a calamity in the defendants’ hospital. The plaintiff
was on night duty, assisted by a nurse, the first defendant witness, when at
about 9 p.m. a pregnant woman called Abiba Busanga, the second defendant
witness, came there to deliver. The first defendant witness carried out the
preliminary preparations in anticipation of her delivery and put her to bed.
The second defendant witness felt like visiting the toilet and got out of bed
for that purpose. She felt it was rather the baby which was descending and she
called the plaintiff for assistance but the plaintiff told her that her time
was not due. As she was plodding towards her bed, she delivered the baby onto
the floor and called once again for the plaintiff’s help. The plaintiff and the
first defendant witness rushed to the scene. Instead of the necessary
sympathetic and professional assistance requested of her, the plaintiff abused
her and followed this with slaps. The plaintiff cut the umbilical cord and left
the baby in the pool of blood and fluid until the first defendant witness took
charge of the baby. Apparently still bereft of any touch of humane feeling, she
ordered the patient to wipe off the blood and remove the placenta from the
floor. The trial judge found these facts as proved.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Following
this incident the plaintiff was invited the following Monday, 19 January 1981,
to the matron’s office and interrogated. The trial judge also accepted as
proved that the plaintiff here behaved insultingly to the authorities. The
defendants followed with a query that same day and she failed to answer it. The
trial judge considered that her refusal to answer the query was deliberate and
that, in all the circumstances, her conduct “was to show naked defiance to the
authorities.” The end result of all these was the defendants’ prompt reaction
in dismissing the plaintiff by their letter dated 20 January 1981, exhibit B.
The letter of dismissal spelt out the plaintiff’s remissness and then went on
to charge her under article 24, para (a) (i) and (iii) of the conditions of
service on discipline for insubordination and gross negligence of duty.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It would
have been a matter of great surprise if the plaintiff’s conduct, such as was
proved against her, could not invite her instant dismissal without any prior
investigative proceedings. But the trial circuit judge thought otherwise. For,
although he was in no doubt that “the plaintiff’s inhuman treatment of the
patient, the first defendant witness, and her impertinence to the authorities”
fell squarely under article 24 (a) (i) and (ill) of the collective agreement
between the Church Hospitals Association of Ghana and the Health Service
Workers Union of the Trades Union Congress of Ghana (exhibit D1) yet he held
that before an employee could be dismissed summarily for gross insubordination
and gross negligence of duty under the above-mentioned article or under article
29 of exhibit D1, proper proceedings should be conducted in terms of what
exhibit D2 captions, “Proceedings in Disciplinary Matters.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Exhibit
D2 appears to be a directive issued by the medical superintendent of the
defendant’s hospital on disciplinary matters. He assigns to the matron and the
heads of department the respective areas over which they are respo</main>