ISAAC ARYEE ARYEEQUAYE vs. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, GHANA PRISONS SERVICE AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2015]DLCA8302

ISAAC ARYEE ARYEEQUAYE vs. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, GHANA PRISONS SERVICE AND THE A... [2015]DLCA8302

Date	2015-05-28
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/55/2014
Citation No.	[2015]DLCA8302

KANYOKE JA (PRESIDING)

ADUAMA OSEI JA

SOWAH JA

MRS. SYLVIA A. ADUSU FOR APPELLANT

MR. SETH WIAFE DANQUAH FOR RESPONDENT

[2015]DLCA8302
																																						<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

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>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MRS. SYLVIA A. ADUSU FOR APPELLANT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

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

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

KANYOKE JA
(PRESIDING), ADUAMA OSEI JA, SOWAH JA<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

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><o:p>&nbsp;</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><o:p>&nbsp;</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><o:p>&nbsp;</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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>From
the rival positions of the parties, the issues that arose for determination by
the trial Court were:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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><o:p>&nbsp;</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 </main>