ISAAC ARYEE ARYEEQUAYE vs. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, GHANA PRISONS SERVICE AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2015]DLCA6731

ISAAC ARYEE ARYEEQUAYE vs. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, GHANA PRISONS SERVICE AND THE... [2015]DLCA6731

Date	2015-05-28
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/55/2014
Citation No.	[2015]DLCA6731

KANYOKE JA (PRESIDING)

ADUAMA OSEI JA

SOWAH JA

MRS. SYLVIA A. ADUSU FOR APPELLANT

MR. SETH WIAFE DANQUAH FOR RESPONDENT

[2015]DLCA6731
																																						<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" >ISAAC ARYEE ARYEEQUAYE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL,
GHANA PRISONS SERVICE AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS)<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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/55/2014&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 28TH MAY, 2015<o:p></o:p>

MR.
SETH WIAFE DANQUAH FOR RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>ADUAMA OSEI <o:p></o:p>In
this judgment, the Plaintiff/Respondent will be called “the Plaintiff”, and the
Defendants/Appellants will be called “the Defendants”. <o:p></o:p>By
his writ of summons issued in the High Court, Accra, on the 27th of June, 2007,
the Plaintiff sought against the Defendants a declaration that “since the
Minister for Interior has not complied with section 19 sub section 3 of the
Prison Service Act, 1972 the service enquiry held at the Wa Central Prisons in
which plaintiff was found guilty and later dismissed is null and void and of no
legal effect whatsoever”. The Plaintiff sought a further declaration that
“since the plaintiff did not plead guilty to count 3, it was wrong for the
panel to have stated in the record of proceedings that the plaintiff pleaded
guilty”. This was in view of the Plaintiff’s contention in the action that even
though he did not plead guilty to count 3 during the service enquiry, the panel
that carried out the enquiry wrongly recorded him as having done so.&nbsp; Other reliefs sought by the Plaintiff against
the Defendants were general damages for wrongful dismissal and an order
“directing the defendants to pay all benefits due to plaintiff forthwith”. <o:p></o:p>The
service enquiry which the Plaintiff sought to challenge in his action was
brought about by an allegation made against him by a prisoner. After the
Regional Prisons authorities at Wa had received the said allegation, they asked
the Plaintiff to submit a statement in response and the institution of the
service enquiry followed receipt by the authorities of the Plaintiff’s
statement. At the service enquiry, the Plaintiff faced charges for 3 offences
under the Prisons Service Act, 1972 (NRCD 46) and his dismissal was based on
the outcome of the enquiry. <o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff’s contention however was that the enquiry on which his dismissal was
based was a nullity because at the time it was conducted, section 19 sub
section 3 of the Prisons Service Act, 1972 (NRCD 46) had not been complied
with. As noted above, the Plaintiff also contended that he had been wrongly
recorded as having pleaded guilty to count 3 of the charges he faced at the
enquiry. The Defendants countered the Plaintiff’s position by insisting that
the Plaintiff pleaded guilty to count 3, and contending that the proceedings at
the enquiry were carried out under section 18(3) of NRCD 46 and were proper and
valid. <o:p></o:p>From
the rival positions of the parties, the issues that arose for determination by
the trial Court were: <o:p></o:p>"a) Whether or not the
disciplinary proceedings which were instituted by the Ghana Prisons Service sin
against section 19(3) of NRCD 46. <o:p></o:p>"b) Whether or not the
disciplinary proceedings were null and void and of no legal effect. <o:p></o:p>"c) Whether or not plaintiff’s
dismissal from the Ghana Prisons Service was unlawful. <o:p></o:p>"d) Whether or not plaintiff is
entitled to his claim." <o:p></o:p>At
the hearing of application for directions at which the above issues were set
down as the issues for trial, the trial Court ordered, following a prayer by
Counsel for the Plaintiff, that the issues be argued as preliminary points.
After considering submissions filed on the preliminary points, the trial Court
in its Ruling dated the 12th of March, 2009, held that the Plaintiff’s
dismissal was wrong in law and it proceeded to grant the Plaintiff all the
reliefs indorsed on his writ of summons. The submissions on which the trial
Court based its decision were those on issue (a) – whether or not the
disciplinary proceedings which were instituted by the Ghana Prisons Service sin
against section 19(3) of NRCD 46. <o:p></o:p>Dissatisfied
with the decision of the trial Court, the Defendants have appealed against the
same to this Court, initially, on the ground that it was against the weight of
evidence, and subsequently, pursuant to leave granted by this Court, on the
additional grounds: <o:p></o:p>"1. That the learned trial Judge
erred in law when she ruled that in the absence of regulations there could not
be any disciplinary action taken against erring prisons officers under the
Prisons Service Act, 1972, NRCD 46. <o:p></o:p>"2. That the learned Judge erred
when she did not delve into the procedure of the Service Enquiry to determine
if it conformed to the rules of Natural Justice". <o:p></o:p>The
Ruling appealed from is at page 28 to page 30 of the Record of Appeal and the
Notice of Appeal is at pages 33 and 34 of the Record. <o:p></o:p><span</main>