HANSON AMPATE AND CHRAJ, KUMASI [2012]DLCHRAJ6003

Date	2012-03-28
Suit No.	CHRAJ/291/2008/1203
Citation No.	[2012]DLCHRAJ6003

JOSEPH WHİTAL

[2012]DLCHRAJ6003
																																						<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">HANSON AMPATE<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">CHRAJ, KUMASI<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 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0in;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">CHRAJ/291/2008/1203&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;28-3-2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COMMISSIONER:<o:p></o:p>JOSEPH WHİTAL DIRECTOR (LEGAL &amp; INVESTIGATIONS) FOR:
COMMISSIONER<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">DECISION<o:p></o:p>

</div>INTRODUCTION <o:p></o:p>On 7th May, 2008 the
Commission received this complaint from Hanson Ampate, the Complainant, who
alleged that he served the Sunstex Company Limited at Kumasi as its Chief
Security Officer for eight (8) years and six (6) months. Following a theft case
at the company's premises on 14th March 2003, he was asked to proceed on an
indefinite suspension for investigations to be conducted into the matter. He
petitioned the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice's (CHRAJ)
Ashanti Regional Office in Kumasi, the Respondent herein, about his prolonged
stay at home. It requested the Police Investigation Report on the theft case
from the police which report exonerated the Complainant. It explained that it
did not have any evidence to warrant his prosecution. Meanwhile, the
Complaint's employers failed to honour several of the Commission's invitation
towards the resolution of the case. Apparently, his employer's Solicitor later
informed the Regional Director of the Respondent about its offer of three (3)
months salary to the Complainant as severance award. The Complainant further
alleged that instead of rejecting this offer and settling for the forty-two
(42) months salary arrears denied him from March 2003 until August 2006, the
Regional Director of the Respondent asked him to accept the former (i.e.
3months salary arrears) or alternatively, that he pursued his claims against
his employer in court. The Complainant concluded that he was disappointed with
the Respondent's handling of his case adding that he believed his former
employer's Solicitor influenced the Commission's decision against him.<o:p></o:p>THE
RESPONDENT'S CASE<o:p></o:p>When the Respondent requested
Sunstex Company Limited's comments on the complaint, it deferred its response
till the receipt of the Police Investigation Report. In the said report, the
police declined to prosecute the Complainant explaining that it did not have
enough evidence to do so. A copy of this report was later forwarded to Sunstex
Company Limited's Solicitor to study and come up with a settlement. The
Solicitor adjourned the matter on three (3) different occasions to enable him
appear before the Commission yet he failed to do so. An invitation was
thereafter thrown to the General Manager of the Company. In spite of the police
report, Sunstex Company Limited maintained that it was unable to re-employ the
Complainant because it found him criminally negligent in facilitating the said
theft on its premises. The Complainant dared his employers to prove his guilt
maintaining that he was being framed up. He insisted on being paid his
forty-two (42) months accrued salary arrears.<o:p></o:p>DECISION<o:p></o:p>The Commission observed that tremendous progress had already been
initiated by its Ashanti Regional branch in the investigation of the above
case. It therefore instructed it to continue with the mediation processes
already underway or alternatively that it rendered a decision on the matter
based on available evidence on record. The Complainant has since then been
informed of the Commission's decision on the matter.<o:p></o:p>It is the opinion of the
Commission that no further investigation is required into this matter. The
Commission therefore ceases further investigations in accordance with Section
13 (1) (b) of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice Act,
1993 (Act 456) which states that:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:19.4pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">"Where in the course of
the investigation of any complaint it appears to the Commission - that having
regard to all the circumstances of the case, any further investigation is
unnecessary, it may refuse to investigate the matter further".<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>