GEORGE A. LARBI vs. S.S.N.I.T. [2012]DLCA7034

Date	2012-04-20
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.: HI/62/2011
Citation No.	[2012]DLCA7034

WOOD J.A. (PRESIDING)

BENIN J.A.

AFREH J.A

[2012]DLCA7034
																																						<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" >GEORGE A. LARBI<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>S.S.N.I.T.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>CIVIL
APPEAL NO.: HI/62/2011 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 20TH APRIL, 2012<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;tab-stops:
101.25pt;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>

</div><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:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;tab-stops:101.25pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;mso-border-between:1.5pt solid windowtext;
mso-padding-between:1.0pt">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>WOOD,
J.A. <o:p></o:p>We
dismissed this appeal from the decision of Her Honour Miss A.M.A. Dzordzie, as
she then was sitting at the Accra Circuit court and reserved our reasons. We
now give them. The facts giving rise to this action are simple and devoid of
any complex legal issues. Not unsurprisingly, the evidence led on both sides is
equally straightforward and brief. It is therefore surprising that this appeal
is based not only on five main grounds but raises also very many issues of law,
some of which were never raised at the trial. <o:p></o:p>The
facts which led to the commencement of these proceedings are that by a letter
dated 19th June, 1992, the respondent corporation wrote to the appellant,
terminating his appointment with the respondent. The letter indicated the
grounds upon which the termination was based. It was alleged that, in answering
a query sent to him he had “used unacceptable language in his replace to both
the Regional Manager and Head of Personnel. Such conduct it was pointed out was
"in contravention of the laid down procedure and regulations of the
Trust" But, because the sanction imposed on him was a termination and not
a summary dismissal, the respondent paid him all his just entitlements made up
of his: <o:p></o:p>(1)
The balance of his enhanced provident fund.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(2) Balance on Savings account,<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(3) A long service award of ¢20.000.00<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(4) Three (3) months Salary in lieu of notice.
This of course was subject to whatever moneys he owed the trust and or other
institutions, the Social Security Bank Ltd included. <o:p></o:p>Not
in the least satisfied with this turn of events, he sued the respondents:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(a) a declaration that the termination was a
nullity.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(b) Reinstatement or in the alternative
damages for wrongful dismissal. <o:p></o:p>By
the paragraph of his statement of claim, he complains that the termination was
not only wrongful but incompetent and a complete nullity. The following were
set out as the particulars. <o:p></o:p>First,
that "as an officer Grade I the plaintiff cannot be terminated under
Article 1 Sub-Section 7(a) of the defendants rules of service which does not
apply to him. <o:p></o:p>Secondly,
that the disciplinary Committee which investigated his conduct was not properly
constituted and was in contravention of the laid-down procedure and regulations
of the Trust in so far as two junior members of staff were made to sit on the
committee and the termination letter was not signed by the General Manager
(Administration), the officer authorised to do so under the regulations of the
Trust. <o:p></o:p>After
a critical examination of his claim and the evidence adduced on both sides, the
trial judge dismissed his claim. By this appeal, he has invited us to set aside
the decision of the court below and award him such damages as we think the
circumstances justify.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Before we turn to the substantive grounds it would
be appropriate to deal with the preliminary objection raised by the appellant
counsel in his reply. The objection is that since the respondent filed his
written reply well after three weeks, the period limited under Court of Appeal
Rules, 1997, C.I.19, rule 20 subrule 4 he must be deemed to have filed any
answer and consequently he must not be heard in these proceedings. Again, it
was urged this court has no discretion to extend the time limited under the
rules and therefore it was urged that this defect was uncapable of cure. <o:p></o:p>We
think that the argument that this Court has no jurisdiction to extend or
enlarge the time within which a respondent may file a</main>