DOMINIC AYIKWEI AND CUBIC ENGINEERING SERVICES [2001]DLCHRAJ6037

Date	2001-05-24
Suit No.	Our Ref: CHRAJ/1145/2001/1903
Citation No.	[2001]DLCHRAJ6037

CHRIS A. OPOKU

[2001]DLCHRAJ6037
																																						<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">DOMINIC AYIKWEI<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">CUBIC ENGINEERING SERVICES<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<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">(CHRAJ)<o:p></o:p>

Our Ref: CHRAJ/1145/2001/1903&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; DATE: 24/05/2001<o:p></o:p>

</div>commissioner:<o:p></o:p>CHRIS
A. OPOKU DEP. 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:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;
border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>The Commission's decision dated 4th
September, 2000 delivered by the Greater Accra Regional Office refers (a copy
is attached).<o:p></o:p>The
Respondent has appealed against the ruling on the following grounds:<o:p></o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; border: none;"><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;">The Commission relied on hearsay
 evidence and other uncorroborated evidence in order to rule in favour of
 the Respondent.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; border: none;"><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;">The evidence of a driver who could
 have been callęd but was not called was relied upon inspite of protest
 from the Complainant.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; border: none;"><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;">The Respondent gave evidence that the
 Complainant had taken up an appointment with a rival company, thus
 compromising the interest of the Respondent company even though the
 evidence was denied by the Complainant this evidence was accepted and
 relied upon to rule in favour of the Respondent without calling any
 witness from the rival company or tendering any document in proof.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;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">The Respondent admitted
 they did not follow the laid down procedure for dismissing the
 Complainant. However, the case officer went ahead to uphold the dismissal
 and rule in favour of the Respondent.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>From
the details available on the decision, it is clear that the Managing Director
of the Respondent Company who was the principal witness referred to what he had
been told by a driver who accompanied the Complainant on a trip to the north
without calling the driver himself to testify at the hearing.<o:p></o:p>Furthermore,
a report from the driver concerning the accident was tendered as an Exhibit by
the Managing Director even though the driver was the author. This exhibit was
accepted and used by the Commission in its ruling.<o:p></o:p>The evidence of the General Manager of the
Respondent Company also referred to what she had been informed of by the
driver. Here again, the driver was not called to give the Complainant the
opportunity to cross-examine the driver thereby establishing the truth or
otherwise of his statements which the officials of the Respondent company came
to repeat to the Commission.<o:p></o:p>The case officer does not also record in
the decision the reason for the absence of the driver from the hearing.<o:p></o:p>In
the circumstances, the Commission finds that the Complainant was not given a
fair hearing as the evidence was accepted and relied upon contrary to the rules
of nat</main>