AYAMGA YAKUBU AKOLGO vs. MOHAMMED AHMED ALHASSAN AND 3 OTHERS [2016]DLCA4800

Date	2016-11-03
Suit No.	CIVIL SUIT: NO: H1/37/2016
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA4800

M.OWUSU (J.A.) – PRESIDING

DORDZIE (J.A.)

KWOFIE (J.A.)

MR. NASH ADJEI PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

ALHAJI FAROUK SEIDU DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2016]DLCA4800
																																						<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" >AYAMGA YAKUBU AKOLGO<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MOHAMMED AHMED ALHASSAN
AND 3 OTHERS<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 SUIT: NO:&nbsp; H1/37/2016&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 3RD NOVEMBER, 2016<o:p></o:p>

ALHAJI
FAROUK SEIDU DEFENDANT/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>MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A.:<o:p></o:p>On
5th day of February, 2015, the High Court, Accra granted an application for certiorari
requested by the applicant and quashed the decision that resulted in the
reduction of his rank and salary.&nbsp; The
court further granted an order of mandamus compelling the Ghana Police Force to
ensure that the Central Disciplinary Board, properly constituted presides over
the matter to conduct the investigations into the alleged improper conduct of
the applicant and awarded Gh¢40,000.00 damages in favour of the applicant for
the trauma and distress caused him by the reduction in his rank and salary.<o:p></o:p>Dissatisfied
with the decision of the court, the applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal
on the following grounds:<o:p></o:p>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The award of Gh¢40,000.00 damages to
the plaintiff is too high and excessive.<o:p></o:p>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The learned trial Judge did not address
her mind to the fact that the respondents in the case were carrying out their
statutory duty under the Police Service Regulations 2012 (C. I. 76) and that
assuming they were not granted any immunity against liability, they should not
be fixed with such high amount.<o:p></o:p>iii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The learned trial Judge failed to advert
her mind to the Police Service Regulations 2012 (C. I. 76) which requires or
entitles the plaintiff/respondent to be recompense for any loss of salary
suffered.<o:p></o:p>iv.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Further grounds of appeal to be filed on
receipt of record of proceedings.<o:p></o:p>The
reliefs sought from this court is for an Order to set aside the damages awarded
or alternatively to reduce same drastically to reflect the realities of the
situation.<o:p></o:p>On
16-4-2015, the defendants/appellants filed notice of additional grounds of
appeal. They are:<o:p></o:p>v.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The learned trial Judge’s ruling that
the plaintiff/respondent should be paid Gh¢40,000.00 damages is inconsistent
with her ruling for the defendants/respondents/appellants specifically the
Police Administration to reconstitute the Central Disciplinary Board to
investigate the alleged misconduct of the plaintiff/respondent suggesting
directly or indirectly that the matter was not conclusively determined to
warrant award of damages.<o:p></o:p>vi.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Wrongful exercise of discretion by
holding that the plaintiff/respondent should be paid damages of Gh¢40,000.00
the trial court wrongfully exercised its discretion when it omitted to have due
regard to Regulation 105 (10) of the Police Service Regulation 2012 (C. I. 76)
which govern the payment of monetary reliefs in such cases.<o:p></o:p>vii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The learned trial Judge failed to
determine the issue that the order to make entries in the book introduced by
3rd defendant/respondent/appellant (i.e. DCOP Ransford Ninson) conduces to
Article 200 (3) of the 1992 Constitution (i.e. Maintenance of Law and Order)
and therefore does not conflict with Police Service Instructions No. 29.<o:p></o:p>viii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The judgment is against the weight of
evidence.<o:p></o:p>Before
dealing with the arguments canvassed in support and against this appeal, I will
give a brief background of the case.<o:p></o:p>At
the court below, the plaintiff/applicant/respondent (herein referred to as
respondent filed on an application for an order of certiorari directed at the
1st defendant/respondent for the purpose of quashing the order of reduction in
rank of&nbsp; the respondent from
Superintendent of Police to Deputy Superintendent of Police dated 28-2-14 on
grounds of nullity.&nbsp; The respondent
further prayed for an order of mandamus directed at 1st defendant /
respondent/appellant to appoint a competent person to chair the Central
Disciplinary Board of the Ghana Police.&nbsp;
In the 57 paragraph affidavit that accompanied the application, the
respondent’s case in sum is that, the 1st defendant/respondent/appellant’s
(hereinafter referred to as appellant) decision to reduce his rank from
Superintendent of Police to Deputy Superintendent of Police based on an
Internal Service Inquiry conducted by Chief Superintendent Ernest Akrasi K.
Mensah was fraught with prejudice, b</main>