EVA LOKKO vs. NATIONAL MEDIA COMMISSION AND GHANA BROADCASTING CORPORATION [2012]DLHC9201

Date	2012-11-02
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BMISC. 132/2006
Citation No.	[2012]DLHC9201

HIS LORDSHIP MR. E. F. DZAKPASU (J).

[2012]DLHC9201
																																						<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" >EVA LOKKO<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NATIONAL MEDIA COMMISSION AND GHANA BROADCASTING CORPORATION<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>SUIT
NO. BMISC. 132/2006&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 2ND NOVEMBER,
2012<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">

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP
MR. E. F. DZAKPASU (J). <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">

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

</div>JUGDM E
N T<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">

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
case is about a public servant complaining that the directive that she proceeds
on leave is tantamount to a dismissal. The said directive she contends, is
unlawful and void because it violates the Labour Law, Act 651 and the Manual of
the 2nd defendant which contains the conditions of service of management staff.
There is no dispute that the said directive that the plaintiff proceed on leave
was on the instructions of the 1st defendant issued to her by the 2nd
defendant. The 1st defendant demanded that plaintiff proceed on leave with
immediate effect. The 2nd defendant complied with the said instructions and
wrote to the plaintiff to proceed on leave on the 2nd November 2005
not immediately
though as directed by 1st defendant. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:8.4pt;margin-right:.2pt;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">Plaintiff
was appointed the Chief Executive i.e. Director General of the 2nd defendant
Ghana Broadcasting Corporation on the 2nd of September, 2002. Her appointment
was by the National Media Commission, the 1st defendant, in consultation with
the President of the Republic of Ghana. Such appointment through
constitutionally mandated bodies, including not less a person than the
President of the Republic of Ghana, should be sufficient
information about the class within which the plaintiff falls as a technocrat.
Relevant for the purposes of this judgment are provisions in the appointment
letter to the effect that where her performance is found unsatisfactory the
Commission reserves the right to terminate her appointment unconditionally or give
her 3 months notice or payment of three months salary in lieu of notice. Her
appointment was for an initial period of 4 years and her performance was to be
gauged by targets set by the State Enterprises Commission and the Board of
Directors of 2nd Defendant. She was to serve a probationary period of one year.
<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:18.2pt;margin-right:.2pt;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes">By
her pleadings, the reasons she has for her contention that the directive to her
to go on leave is legally unacceptable were that there was no meeting of the
Board of the GBC that took the decision that she proceeds on leave and if there
was any such meeting then it was a meeting without the requisite quorum because
she was not at that meeting as required by law. At the time of the directive
she was not under any investigations, charged with any offence or received any
query from any d</main>