MR. AYAMGA YAKUBU AKOLGO vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE MR MOHAMMED AHMED ALHASSAN AND 3 OTHERS [2015]DLCA4466

MR. AYAMGA YAKUBU AKOLGO vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE MR MOHAMMED AHMED ALHA... [2015]DLCA4466

Date	2015-10-22
Suit No.	SUIT NO.: H3 / 552 / 2015
Citation No.	[2015]DLCA4466

M. AGYEMANG (MRS) J.A.

MR. A. K. KOKROKO FOR APPLICANTS

RESPONDENT APPEARS IN PERSON

[2015]DLCA4466
																																						<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" >MR.
AYAMGA YAKUBU AKOLGO<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF
/ RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE MR
MOHAMMED AHMED ALHASSAN AND 3 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS / APPELLANTS /APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF
APPEAL, 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.:
H3 / 552 / 2015&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
22ND OCTOBER, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR. A. K. KOKROKO FOR
APPLICANTS<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">

RESPONDENT
APPEARS IN PERSON<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">

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This is a ruling in respect of an application for
stay of execution of the ruling of the High Court delivered on the 5th
of February 2015 by which an order was made for the payment of damages by the
defendants/ appellants/applicants herein to the plaintiff/respondent/respondent
(respondent).<o:p></o:p>The application is supported by a twenty-one
paragraph affidavit sworn to by one ACP/Mr Frank S. Kwofie, Director General
Legal and Prosecution at the Ghana Police Service who alleged himself to have
the consent and authority of the defendants/applicants to depose to matters that
were within his personal knowledge, information and belief.<o:p></o:p>Giving a background to the application, the said
deponent recounted that the respondent, then Kwesimintsim District Police
Commander, was instructed by the third applicant to make entries of occurrence
in a book introduced by the third applicant then Western Regional Commander.
This was part of a programme dubbed “Operation calm life” which was set in
motion to curb the incidents of robbery and violence in the Sekondi-Takoradi
Metropolis at the time. The respondent allegedly refused to comply with the
directive, contending that it had not been introduced by the first applicant
who alone had the authority to do so. <o:p></o:p>Following the alleged refusal, the matters
wereallegedly investigated and the respondent, found culpable. He was punished
with a reduction in rank from Superintendent to Deputy Superintendent of Police
and the consequent reduction in salary and benefits. The respondent, aggrieved
by this, initiated judicial review proceedings before the High Court, Accra
which having heard the matter, entered judgment for the respondent, quashing
the decision that resulted in the reduction of rank of the respondent. A
consequential order was made remitting the case to the Police Force for it to
constitute a Central Disciplinary Board to rehear it. The court further awarded
damages of GHC40,000 to the respondent. <o:p></o:p>The applicants filed an appeal against the award of
damages and followed it up with the instant application for a stay of execution
pending appeal.<o:p></o:p>The applicants have alleged that the respondent may
not be in a position to refund the sum of GHC40,000 to the applicants in the
event of a successful appeal, and furthermore, that the first defendant as head
of the Police Force had, in accordance with Regulation 105(10)(a) of Police
Service Regulations, caused all arrears of salary and allowances resulting from
a reduction in rank from Superintendent to Deputy Superintendent, to be paid to
the respondent.<o:p></o:p>The main argument upon which the instant application
is premised, is the submission that the appeal raises an arguable legal point
as judgment of the court below was decided per
incuriam, and thus stands a good chance of being reversed on appeal.In this
regard, the argument has been forcefully made that the award of damages was not
envisaged by Regulation105(10)(a) of the Police Service Regulations which laid
down the monetary compensation payable to an officer who having been
interdicted, was acquitted of wrongdoing following a service inquiry. Learned
counsel contended that in any event, the amount of GHC40,000 damages was
excessive, and would cause undue stress on the financial commitments of the
Police Service. This, he submitted, would in turn affect the administrative and
operational running of the Service. Lastly, he has argued that at the
respondent’s present salary, a successful appeal will be difficult to satisfy,
for the judgment debt if paid may have to be recovered in salary deductions
over a number of years.<o:p></o:p>The respondent filed a rather prolix affidavit
which was full of legal and other arguments as well as a supplementary
affidavit in opposition. The matters of fact deposed to are the following: that
although he was restored to his position per order of certiorari that quashed
the disciplinary proceedings including its verdict, the applicants punished him
in other ways, including the failure to reconstitute the Central Disciplinary
Board as ordered by the court. He deposed that the award of damages was
lawfully made, and had no nexus with the monetary compensation payable to an
interdicted officer who was acquitted of charges. The amount of GHC4,100 which
had been restored to him was by no means in the nature of damages nor was it
adequate compensation for the distress and trauma he had suffered by the
applicant’s act.He further deposed that in the unlikely event of a successful
appeal, as a serving officer of sixteen years he had an annual net salary of
about GHC40,000 which could be deducted in month</main>