COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE vs. GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK [2001]DLHC1183

Date	2001-11-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2001]DLHC1183

ANSAH JA

CEPHAS ESSILFIE-ANSAH FOR THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE.

CHRIS OPOKU FOR THE PETITIONER.

A T TAMAKLOE FOR THE RESPONDENT-BANK.

[2001]DLHC1183
																																						<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">COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE<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">GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[2001-2002] 1 GLR 531<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="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 22
NOVEMBER 2001<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>CEPHAS ESSILFIE-ANSAH FOR THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND
ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE.<o:p></o:p>CHRIS OPOKU FOR THE PETITIONER.<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 T TAMAKLOE FOR THE RESPONDENT-BANK. <o:p></o:p>

ANSAH JA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Ansah JA. <o:p></o:p>The complaint put before the Commission on Human Rights and
Administrative Justice (hereinafter referred to as CHRAJ) was that the
complainant had been wrongfully dismissed from his employment. He therefore
petitioned CHRAJ for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“(1) The complainant should be paid his end of service benefits. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(2) The complainant should be paid his salary at current levels,
in addition to two years’ salary as damages for wrongful dismissal.”<o:p></o:p>CHRAJ, in exercise of its constitutional duties heard the
complaint by taking evidence from both sides after which it published its
decision in the following terms, namely:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“In the light of all the circumstances the commission upholds its
earlier decision that the petitioner cannot be faulted for the total loss that
the respondents suffered. Having held that the petitioner is not liable, the
commission is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to his end of service
benefits including his salary at current levels and damages for two years’
salary in line with GNTC v Baiden [1991] 1 GLR 567, SC in which the Supreme
court approved of the court of Appeal decision in the case of Ghana Cocoa
Marketing Board v Agbettoh [1984-86] 1 GLR 122, CA.”<o:p></o:p>The decision was given on 7 March 1996. Now, it was provided in
section 18(2) of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice Act,
1993 (Act 456) that if within three months after the report is made no action
is taken which seems to be adequate and appropriate, the commissioner may bring
an action before any court and seek a remedy for its enforcement. CHRAJ by the
present action, commenced by an originating notice of motion, sought an order
to enforce its decision.<o:p></o:p>The application was supported by an affidavit. The gravamen of the
facts deposed to in the affidavit was that the complainant before CHRAJ, one Mr
Dugbartey, was, at the time material to these proceedings, temporarily assigned
the duty of managing the Suhum branch of the Ghana Commercial Bank (hereinafter
referred to as GCB). The GCB alleged that Dugbartey suppressed some cheques
drawn by a customer on his account at its Suhum branch when, instead of
returning them to the drawer, for he had no funds in the account, he did not do
so but chose to keep it at the receiving branch. It was only when inspectors
went to the Suhum branch on inspection that this irregularity was detected. The
inspectors then instructed Dugbartey to pass the cheque through the drawer’s account,
which he said he did. The petitioner claimed that he was not responsible for
the suppression of the cheques or the “unauthorised overdrafts”; he said one Mr
Okae, his predecessor-manager at the bank, was the one who held schedules
37/176 and 37/178 over the twenty working-day period. The petitioner asserted
that at the Suhum branch, the mandatory period for the clearing of cheques fell
within 20 working days. The petitioner also stated that apart from exhibit 4,
all the other cheques could have been returned as having not been cleared by
the petitioner to the High Street branch of the bank on 11 October 1990. In
all, the petitioner asserted that the liability caused when he suppressed
exhibit 4 was only ¢2,250,292; he did not suppress any cheques, which totalled
¢33,582,329.13 and it was wrong for the bank to have held him liable for the
suppression of cheques of that value. On these facts as found by CHRAJ, the
decision was made that it was wrong for the GCB to have purported to dismiss
the petitioner summarily. An order was made that the petitioner’s end of
service benefits which had been frozen should be “unfrozen” and paid back to
him “forthwith.” It was further ordered that the petitioner should be paid two
years’</main>