ANTHONY EMMANUEL CRANKSON vs THE NATIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION (NADMO), THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PER THE CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY [2013]DLCA16152

ANTHONY EMMANUEL CRANKSON vs THE NATIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION (NADM... [2013]DLCA16152

Date	2013-06-27
Suit No.	SUIT NO. HI/ 13/2013
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA16152

HONYENUGA JA PRESIDING

ADJEI JA.

ACKAH –YENSU JA

AUGUSTINE AVAL MENSAH ESQ.

MRS MARY NSENKYIRE(SA)

[2013]DLCA16152
																																						<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" >ANTHONY
EMMANUEL CRANKSON<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE
NATIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION (NADMO), THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PER THE
CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 4.5pt;">

</div>COUNSEL&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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 style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 4.5pt;">

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HONYENUGA JA PRESIDING, ADJEI JA., ACKAH –YENSU JA<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 4.5pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;tab-stops:
center 242.9pt left 303.0pt;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; JUDGMENT&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

</div>DENNIS ADJEI . JA:<o:p></o:p> 
On 28th June, 2006 the High Court Sekondi dismissed the Plaintiff's claim as
endorsed&nbsp;on his writ of summons and entered judgment for the defendants on
their counterclaim. The Plaintiff dissatisfied&nbsp; with the judgment&nbsp; of
the trial High Court filed an appeal to this court. In this appeal the
Plaintiff /Appellant would be referred to as Plaintiff and the Defendants/
Respondents as Defendants.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;The brief facts of the case culminating in
this appeal were that the Plaintiff was an employee of the 1st defendant and
stationed at Takoradi. The 1st Defendant acquired a duty post accommodation
from Social Security National Insurance&nbsp;Trust (SSNIT) and gave it to the
Plaintiff to occupy in his capacity as an employee.&nbsp; There was a tenancy
agreement between&nbsp;SSNIT and the 1st defendant and the premises &nbsp;was described in the tenancy agreement as Flat
No 2B on the ground floor of Block 1 Anaji. At a point in time the Plaintiff
asserted ownership to the duty post&nbsp;flat. His case was that he negotiated
for it but the policy governing the allocation of the flats was that it was
allocated to institutions and not individual employees and as a result of that
it was allocated in the name of his employer; the 1st defendant. The 1st
Defendant transferred the Plaintiff to its District Office at Jomoro in the
Western Region. The Plaintiff saw his transfer as unfair and unjust and decided
not to go to his new station. The Plaintiff did not receive his salary for October,
2003. He made an investigation and found that an embargo had been placed on his
salary by the 1st defendant for having vacated his post. He lodged&nbsp;a
complaint against the&nbsp;1st defendant with Commission&nbsp;on Human Rights
and Administrative Justice&nbsp;(CHRAJ) at Takoradi. CHRAJ investigated the
case and found two of the plaintiff's reliefs as frivolous and found the third
relief for him. The two reliefs which were found to be frivolous were that the&nbsp;Plaintiff
was not a recognized tenant of the flat, that is the subject matter of the 1st
defendant's counterclaim and&nbsp;secondly, the Plaintiff&nbsp;vacated his post
and was not entitled to reinstatement. However, the 1st defendant was directed
to pay the Plaintiff's salary up to 29th&nbsp;January, 2004 based on the number
of days he attended work from 1st November, 2003 to 29th January, 2004.<o:p></o:p> 
On 29th January, 2004 the 1st defendant terminated the Plaintiff’s employment. The
plaintiff took out a writ against the defendants challenging the basis of his transfer
and the termination. The trial High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and
granted the 1st&nbsp;Defendant’s counterclaim. The&nbsp;P</main>