MAXWELL B. GYANSAH AND GHANA COCOA BOARD [2000]DLCHRAJ5824

Date	2000-11-08
Suit No.	Our Ref: CHRAJ/OB/CN/385/92/384
Citation No.	[2000]DLCHRAJ5824

CHRIS. DADZIE (MRS.]

[2000]DLCHRAJ5824
																																						<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">MAXWELL B. GYANSAH<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 COCOA BOARD<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/OB/CN/385/92/384&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; 08/11/2000<o:p></o:p>

</div>COMMISSIONER:<o:p></o:p>CHRIS. DADZIE (MRS.] CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER
For: COMMISSIONER<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">REVIEW
DECISION<o:p></o:p>

</div>This
decision is on a review application made by the respondents' in this case.<o:p></o:p>In
the Commission's decision dated 20th March 1995 the dismissal of the
complainant was found to be a nullity. As a relief he was to be reinstated and
paid all benefits and entitlements or in the alternative he was to be retired
and. paid all benefits including salaries plus damages.<o:p></o:p>As
a Produce Supervisor in Lawra in the Upper West Region he had been dismissed
for allegedly purchasing sub-standard shea nuts and he also faced a charge of
stealing for selling sheanut samples.<o:p></o:p>All the issues that were joined were
resolved in favour of the complainant; the Commission observed after its
examination of the Committee of Inquiry report and evaluation of the evidence
available to the Committee that the poor quality of the sheanuts was due to
poor storage facilities, long period of storage and delay in the evacuation of
the nuts to the port.<o:p></o:p>When the decision of the Commission was
served on the respondents they disagreed with it and therefore applied for a
review. The main objection to the decision was that the Commission had relied
on an incomplete committee report. In a subsequent letter to the Commission
they explained that it was only after the receipt of a copy of the decision
that they realized that the report they had despatched to the Commission was
incomplete. They said it was 'wholly inadvertent'.<o:p></o:p>The respondents accordingly submitted
certain documents which they considered to constitute a full report. The
respondents then asked the Commission to "reopen the case to allow for
justice to be seen to have been done".<o:p></o:p>The new materials that were placed before
the Commission were carefully examined and interestingly they were found to be
either the assessment or evaluation of the evidence by various bodies of the
respondent that had been set up to comment on the evidence embodied in the
committee's report.<o:p></o:p>In
fact this same evidence was already available to the Commission to assess and
make an evaluation for itself.<o:p></o:p>For purposes of a review the respondents
were obliged to assume the burden of showing from the evidence how the
Commission may have erred in its decision. The respondents failed to do this.<o:p></o:p>In
any case, the report that the respondents described as incomplete is one that
did not embody the recommendations of the committee. The Commission stated this
in its decision and made it clear that it was making findings based exclusively
on the evidence adduced before the committee and embodied in the report.<o:p></o:p>