EX-CHIEF INSPECTOR ADAMS KYEI vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE [2018]DLCA4734

Date	2018-03-15
Suit No.	CIVIL SUIT NO: H1/127/2017
Citation No.	[2018]DLCA4734

M. OWUSU (J.A.) – PRESIDING

HONYENUGA (J.A.)

TORKORNOO (J.A.)

AGYEI MENSAH ALFRED FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

CECIL ADADEVOR FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2018]DLCA4734
																																						<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" >EX-CHIEF INSPECTOR ADAMS
KYEI<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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: H1/127/2017&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 15TH MARCH,
2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>AGYEI MENSAH ALFRED FOR
THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

CECIL
ADADEVOR FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

M.
OWUSU (J.A.) – PRESIDING, HONYENUGA (J.A.), TORKORNOO (J.A.)<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>MARIAMA
OWUSU, J.A.:<o:p></o:p>On
7th of April, 2016, the High Court (Financial and Economic Crimes
Court 1) Accra, dismissed the plaintiff’s claim as not proved.<o:p></o:p>In
her judgment, the trial High Court Judge stated among other things as follows:<o:p></o:p>“The totality of the evidence adduced
and the exhibits tendered all indicate clearly that the plaintiff was given a
hearing and that due process was adhered to.&nbsp;
It also confirms that the Service Enquiry was properly held as all the
parties were given the opportunity to be heard and were heard.&nbsp; The law requires that a person be given the
opportunity to be heard.&nbsp; It does not
compel a person to speak hence there is a right to silence or not to speak to a
charge or complaint.&nbsp; Once it is evident
that a party was given the chance or opportunity to be heard, the law deems
that he has been given a hearing.<o:p></o:p>I have carefully evaluated the
totality of the evidence led and come to the conclusion that the dismissal of
the plaintiff was not wrongful but in accordance with law.<o:p></o:p>An evaluation of the evidence adduced
indicates that the plaintiff has not discharged the burden of proof on him as
required by Section II (1) and (4) of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323).&nbsp; The plaintiff’s claim fails and judgment is
entered for the defendant.” <o:p></o:p>Dissatisfied
with the decision of the High Court, the plaintiff has appealed to this Court
on the following grounds:<o:p></o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The judgment is against the weight of
evidence; <o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The court erred in holding that the
witnesses and Exhibit ‘1’ confirm that there was a service enquiry adjudicated
by Patience Quaye on the alleged stealing and misconduct of the plaintiff;<o:p></o:p>c.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;