KOJO ABANKWA AND GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK [2000]DLCHRAJ5814

Date	2000-07-31
Suit No.	Our Ref: CHRAJ/335/96/1080
Citation No.	[2000]DLCHRAJ5814

BENJAMIN K. OPPONG

[2000]DLCHRAJ5814
																																						<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:#00B050">KOJO ABANKWA<o:p></o:p>(COMPLAINANT)<o:p></o:p>AND<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:#00B050">GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>(CHRAJ)<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">

Our
Ref: CHRAJ/335/96/1080&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; &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; 31/07/2000<o:p></o:p>

</div>COMMISSIONER:<o:p></o:p>BENJAMIN
K. OPPONG DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LEGAL/OPERATIONS<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">DECISION<o:p></o:p>

</div>In his petition dated 14th April 1996, the
complainant, Kojo Abankwa pleaded that he was the Akim Oda Branch Manager of
the respondent prior to the termination of his appointment on 7th August 1984. According
to him the grounds cited by the respondents for their action was that he had
granted an overdraft facility of ¢30,000,000.00.<o:p></o:p>According to the complainant he wrote
several times to explain to his employers, the respondents, that he granted the
said overdraft facility on the instructions of his immediate boss, one Mr. A.
Lanquaye Tawiah who was the area manager at the time.<o:p></o:p>The
complainant also pleaded that his several petitions to the Bank were not heeded
and that he was not given an opportunity to state his side of the story prior
to the termination of his appointment.<o:p></o:p>He therefore prayed the Commission to go
into the matter once again and grant him the appropriate remedies.<o:p></o:p>In
their response to the petition dated 20th September 1996, the respondents said
that the unauthorized facilities granted by the complainant were still not
liquidated and that the Board's decision remained irrevocable until such time
that the unauthorized facilities were settled.<o:p></o:p>In
his reaction to the respondents comments dated 1st November 1996, the
complainants denied ever granting unauthorized facilities. He said that the
facilities granted by him were all authorized in writing by the then area
manager. He cited the facilities granted to Holex Timber Products Ltd. and
Wenkyi Farms and Livestock Limited were both authorized by the area manager. He
stated further that Holex Timber is still a reputable company with substantial
assets. It is the complainant's case therefore that he was not queried or made
to explain the source of authority for the facilities. It is his case also that
he was not subsequently made to appear before a Disciplinary Committee to
explain himself. It is the complainant's contention therefore that if he had
been arraigned before a disciplinary body he would have given evidence of
written authority in respect of all the facilities from the files. This state
of affairs, he argued, is against natural justice. He therefore prayed the
Commission to review his case and restore his just rights.<o:p></o:p>Several
attempts were made by the Commission to institute a hearing into the matter.
Several invitations sent to the respondents to appear for commencement of
hearing were all spurned by them. The Commission is thus compelled to give a
decision on the evidence before it.<o:p></o:p>There
is hardly any doubt that the complainant was not given the opportunity to state
his case prior to the termination of his appointment by the respondents. He was
not queried in writing or made to state his defence in any form to the
management of the respondents or any disciplinary body.<o:p></o:p>It
may well be the case, as pointed out by the complainant, that if he had been
given the opportunity to state his side of the story he could have shown
evidence of the authority for the grant of the facilities. The failure by the
respondents to grant him this opportunity ran counter to a cardinal principle
of natural justice which states that a person who is charged with an offence
shall be granted the right to state his def</main>