T. L. OGUM vs. THE COMMISSIONER (CHRAJ), THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LEGAL & OPERATIONS), THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER (FINANCE & ADMIN.) [2009]DLHC4306

T. L. OGUM vs. THE COMMISSIONER (CHRAJ), THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LEGAL & OPERAT... [2009]DLHC4306

Date	2009-10-08
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BMISC 2454/02
Citation No.	[2009]DLHC4306

KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

MR. G. OSAFO-OSEI FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

MR. KWAKU GYAU BAAFOUR FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[2009]DLHC4306
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">T. L. OGUM<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE COMMISSIONER
(CHRAJ), THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LEGAL &amp; OPERATIONS), THE DEPUTY
COMISSIONER (FINANCE &amp; ADMIN.)<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (INDUSTRIAL/LABOUR DIVISION),
ACCRA]<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">

SUIT NO.
BMISC 2454/02&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: 8TH OCTOBER, 2009 <o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MR. G. OSAFO-OSEI FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

MR.
KWAKU GYAU BAAFOUR FOR THE DEFENDANTS.&nbsp; <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">

KWABENA
ASUMAN-ADU, JUSTICE
OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>On the 18th November,
2002 the plaintiff who was a former employee of the Commission of Human Rights
and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) issued out Writ of Summons against the
defendants herein for damages for malicious prosecution and general damages.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the attached Statement of Claim,
the plaintiff avers that until his appointment as Chief Administrator with the
Commission of Human Rights and Administrative Justice on 26th
November, 1996 he was a Director with the Ministry of Environment, Science and
Technology. The first defendant is the Commissioner and 2nd and 3rd
defendants are Deputy Commissioners in charge of Legal and Operations and
Finance and Administration respectively.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The plaintiff assumed duty at the
Commission on 2nd February, 1997 as Chief Administrator. His terms
and conditions of employment were clearly stated in the letter of appointment
dated 26th November, 1996. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the 14th May, 1999 the
defendants wrote to the plaintiff seeking to convert his original appointment
to one based on year to year. Dissatisfied with the terms in the new agreement,
the plaintiff took an action in the Circuit Court, Accra on 17th
May, 1999 against the Commission in which he contended that he was a Public
Officer within the terms of the constitution and could not be retired early and
put on a contract renewable on a year to year basis. There was an attempt to
settle the dispute out of court but the settlement broke down.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first defendant then made a
report to the Serious Fraud Office that the plaintiff be charged with stealing
because he had received two months’ salary after he had retired from the Civil
Service. First defendant went on to write to the plaintiff that if he accepts
six months’ salary in lieu of termination as an ex-gratia payment, the
Commission would withdraw the case against him referred to the Serious Fraud
Office.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The second and third defendants also
pointed out to the plaintiff, the danger of not accepting the terms and
possibility of being prosecuted for theft and its attendant ramifications on
the plaintiff’s future as a lawyer. The three defendants also boasted that if
the plaintiff turned down their offer, they would not allow the Commission to
be put into disrepute and would do all they can to protect it. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 31st May, 2000 the
plaintiff was arraigned before the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal on a charge
of stealing. On the same day, the defendants wrote to the plaintiff interdicting
him and putting him on a half salary. At the hearing at the Regional Tribunal,
the third defendant gave evidence for the prosecution as the complainant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The plaintiff was eventually
acquitted and discharged of the charge of stealing by the Regional Tribunal on
the 27th July, 2000. Also in the case against the Commission at the
Circuit Court, judgment was given in favour of the plaintiff on 19th
February, 2002.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The prosecution initiated on 31st
May, 2000 against the plaintiff by the defendants was clearly aimed at getting
him to agree to accept the defendants’ new terms of employment without any
legal basis. It was, therefore, malicious and without any justification
whatsoever.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</</main>