NEEQUAYE vs. GHANA FILM INDUSTRY CORPORATION [1992]DLCA5046

Date	1992-02-13
Suit No.	[1992 – 1993] 3 G B R 1022 – 1027 C.A
Citation No.	[1992]DLCA5046

AMUAH JA

ADJABENG JA

ESSILFIE-BONDZIE J

DR ACHEAMPONG FOR THE APPELLANT.

G THOMPSON FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1992]DLCA5046
																																						<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" >NEEQUAYE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA FILM INDUSTRY
CORPORATION<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL]<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">

[1992 – 1993] 3 G B R 1022 – 1027
C.A&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 13 FEBRUARY 1992<o:p></o:p>

G
THOMPSON FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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 1.0pt 0in">

AMUAH
JA, ADJABENG JA, ESSILFIE-BONDZIE J<o:p></o:p>

</div>AMUAH JA. <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff-appellant, an employee of the Ghana Film Industry Corporation, who
instituted an action at the High Court, Accra, claimed by his writ:<o:p></o:p>“(a) An order for rescission of the
interdiction of the plaintiff by the defendant and to restore him to his post
as a Lighting Technician with the Corporation.<o:p></o:p>(b) An order for the payment to the
plaintiff of his full salary&nbsp; with effect
from the date of interdiction to the date of judgment.<o:p></o:p>(c) An order for the refund to the
plaintiff of the sum of $200 dollars and CFA 5,000 dubiously extorted from him
by the defendant, in breach of the Collective Agreement.”<o:p></o:p>The
Ghana Film Industry Corporation, the defendant-respondent, maintained that the
plaintiff-appellant was not entitled to his claim. The learned trial judge
entered judgment in favour of the defendant-respondent hence this appeal. She
made the following pronouncement in her judgment:<o:p></o:p>“… whether or not the plaintiff is
entitled to re-instatement, the recovery and refund of money wrongfully
extorted from him when held in terrorem, the defendant’s answer to the question
is that the plaintiff had not exhausted his domestic remedies set out in the
collective agreement and, at worst, the plaintiff’s only remedy at court is to
compel the defendant to investigate the matter within a specific period and
either reinstate or dismiss the plaintiff.”<o:p></o:p>Aggrieved
by the decision, the plaintiff-appellant (herein referred to as the
“plaintiff”) appealed to the Court of Appeal on a number of grounds, namely:<o:p></o:p>“1. The judgment is wholly
unreasonable and untenable, having regard to the evidence.<o:p></o:p>2. The trial court erred in law in not
considering the case law cited to her by the appellant as to the correct procedures
in dealing with a breach of the Collective Agreement, and calling it a waste of
time to do so.<o:p></o:p>3. The trial court erred in making an
order which is incapable of performance, to wit that: ‘The Germans must be told
to come to Accra to give evidence, and a report should be given at the earliest
possible time’.<o:p></o:p>That is so because:<o:p></o:p>(a) The Germans were mere
visitors who came to shoot a film and are functus officio.<o:p></o:p>(b) They cannot be
compelled by the respondent to return to Ghana for the departmental enquiry,
nearly three years thereafter.<o:p></o:p>(c) The German complainant
is caught by the maxim “ex turpi causa non oritur actio.<o:p></o:p>(d) The Germans never made
any official report to the respondent corporation.<o:p></o:p>4. The trial court was utterly
confused in deciding that after a lapse of five whole months of interdiction,
the plaintiff-appellant was ‘not entitled to resort to the High Court for his
redress, and at the same time ruled that the plaintiff should have issued a
writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to perform their duty and, yet at
the same time ordering the respondents to set up a committee of enquiry to
investigate the matter.’ This judicial terpisichore totally lacks choreography,
and is&nbsp; completely unprecedented.<o:p></o:p>5. If the trial court had not chosen
the line of least resistance, and had adverted her mind and attention to what
she called ‘the other issue’ which she considered a ‘waste of time’, she would
have arrived at a more intelligible decision considering the fact that the
respondents had no intention to hold any enquiry, as they had resorted to a
trial by fetish ordeal and on the basis of it, they had already collected
enormous sums of money in foreign exchange from the appellant, whose refusal to
make any further payments led to his suspension.”<o:p></o:p>Before
considering the grounds of appeal, we will set out the salient points of the
plaintiff’s case. The plaintiff, a lighting technician was an employee of the
Ghana Film Industry Corporation. On 1 November 1988, a filming party made up of
the Regional Managing Director, the Senior Lighting Technician, twenty visitors
from Germany left Accra for Kumasi to shoot a film. Mr Appiah, the plaintiff’s
immediate senior, accompanied them on one of the trucks. The plaintiff followed
them by his own means of transport seven days later and joined them in Kumasi.
Before shooting started, Mr Appiah asked the plaintiff to take charge of one of
the lighting trucks containing filming equipment and other items. After
shooting in Kumasi for a week, the party proceeded to Takoradi. Mr Appiah
travelled on the lighting truck. The plaintiff travelled on his own transport
and arrived the next day. The visitors stayed at the Atlantic Hotel where the
vehicles were parked. The </main>