GHANA AIRWAYS CORPORATION vs. ADDO [1989]DLHC2019

Date	1989-07-07
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1989]DLHC2019

BENIN J.

DY-YAKAH FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPLICANTS.

A. A. LUGUTERAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

[1989]DLHC2019
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">GHANA AIRWAYS CORPORATION<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">ADDO<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, TAMALE]<o:p></o:p>[1992] 2 GLR 397<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">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>DY-YAKAH FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPLICANTS.<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">

A. A. LUGUTERAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF BENIN J.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff on 12 September 1988 sued out a writ of summons
against the defendants claiming the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(1). “Declaration that the
plaintiff’s indefinite suspension from work is wrongful. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(2). Declaration that the plaintiff
is entitled to all his arrears of salary and other entitlements. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(3). Declaration that since the
defendants have not up to date investigated further against the plaintiff, he
is entitled to the yearly and other salary reviews which operated within the
corporation from the date of his suspension. to the date of judgment. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">(4).
An order that the plaintiff be paid all the arrears of his salary
and other benefits from the date of suspension to the date of judgment.”<o:p></o:p>A brief summary of the plaintiff’s case as contained in his
statement of claim is as follows: he was accused by his employers of certain
lapses in the performance of his duties and prosecuted at a criminal court for
theft. The charge was withdrawn by the entry of a nolle prosequi. Meanwhile
whilst the police were still investigating the criminal case against him, his
employers wrote suspending him from duty without pay until the case was
disposed of. When the nolle prosequi was entered signifying that the case was
disposed of, the plaintiff wrote to his employers asking for an immediate
lifting of the suspension; to which they replied saying that fresh
investigations were being conducted into the case and therefore he could not be
reinstated at that stage. Thereafter after several inquiries the plaintiff
realised that the defendants were conducting no investigations, hence the
action. By their defence, the defendants admitted the facts contained in the
claim but contended that investigations were still going on.<o:p></o:p>The matter was set down for trial following summons for
directions. The defendants then put in this application to amend their
pleadings by adding a plea that the action by the plaintiff is statute-barred.
This was opposed by the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>At the hearing of the application to amend, the arguments centred
on the following main topics: (a) whether an amendment under a limitation
statute can be raised or granted at the trial; (b) whether the plaintiff ‘s
cause of action accrued when the nolle prosequi was entered or when he claimed
the investigations ended; and (c) whether, if the application can be granted at
this stage, and if the cause of action accrued when the nolle prosequi was
entered in 1979, this is a fit case where the court may exercise its discretion
to grant the amendment sought.<o:p></o:p>In arguing the first point, counsel for the defendant-applicants
(herei</main>