DR. MARTIN AJEI vs. DR. EMMANUEL IFEANYI ANI [2018]DLHC3486

Date	2018-03-13
Suit No.	SUIT NO.GJ/1286/17
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3486

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2018]DLHC3486
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">DR.
MARTIN AJEI<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>DR. EMMANUEL IFEANYI ANI<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (GENERAL
JURISDICTION DIVISION), 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.GJ/1286/17&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 13TH MARCH, 2018<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">

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE
OF THE HIGH COURT<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">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>The parties are both senior academic staff of the
Department of Philosophy and Classics of the University of Ghana, Legon. The
Plaintiff being the Head of Department instituted this action claiming damages for
what he claim to be defamatory publications made by Defendant against him. Based
on an application filed by the Defendant that the action of the Plaintiff was
premature as there was the need for proceedings to be stayed pending the
exhaustion of local remedies at the University, the court acceded to the
invitation by staying its proceedings and referred the matter to be settled by
the use of the process set out under the Code of Conduct for academic Staff of
the University of Ghana.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The parties are back in court and reminiscent of the
account of the twelve spies in the Book of Numbers in the Bible who were sent
by Moses to spy the promised land and having witnessed the same events in
Palestine but with different interpretations as to what they witnessed so has the
events that transpired at the University of Ghana subsequent to the reference
by the court to the University for the internal procedures to be exhausted been
the subject of variant interpretations by the Plaintiff and the Defendant. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Whiles Plaintiff claim that the internal procedures
spelt out has been exhausted by virtue of clause 7:8 of the Code of Conduct of
the University wherein the Dean of the School of Arts, Prof. Kodzo Gavua has
written to indicate his unwillingness to continue to attempt settlement of the
dispute in view of a letter received from the lawyer for Defendant. Defendant
on the other hand claim that the internal remedies have not been exhausted by
relying on clause 14 of the same Code of Conduct and insist that a Committee
set up by the Provost of the College of Humanities based on a petition filed by
the Plaintiff to investigate the allegations made by Plaintiff has not yet
completed its work and submitted its report.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is instructive to note that before the issuance of
the writ, Plaintiff had petitioned the Provost complaining about the conduct of
the Defendant for which a committee was set up. There is evidence that
Defendant was invited to appear before the Committee and indeed Ex ‘C’ states
among others that “The Provost, College
of Humanities has established a Committee to investigate some allegations of
misconduct…”. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>When proceedings was stayed for the parties to exhaust
local remedies, the Plaintiff per a letter dated 27th November, 2017
and purporting to be proceeding under clause 7:8 of the Code of Conduct invited
the Dean of the School of Arts to attempt settlement. And it is this failure of
settlement culminating in the letter of Prof Gavua that Plaintiff relies on as
the exhaustion of local remedies.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>For a better appreciation it is worth quoting clause
7:8 and 14 of the Code of Conduct. Clause 7:8 states as follows:<o:p></o:p>“Where an academic staff is aggrieved by the conduct of a colleague on
any issue, he/she shall first report to the Head of Department or Dean for an
attempt at settlement”.<o:p></o:p>Clause 14 that deals with Investigative Procedures
states at 14:1 as follows:<o:p></o:p>“On receipt of a complaint of any breach of code of conduct, either from
the Head of Department through the Dean, or from the Dean, Vice Chancellor
shall set up a committee to investigate the complaint. The committee so set
shall report to the relevant Disciplinary Committee in accordance with the
Statutes of the University”.<o:p></o:p>It could be gleaned that clause 7:8 under which
Plaintiff wrote to Prof Gavua was only in respect of an amicable settlement of
the dispute partaking of the form of a mediation process. This process is the
first step to activation of the disciplinary committee procedures under clause
14 as clause 14 procedure deal with the operations of a disciplinary committee
set up and tasked to investigate any alleged breach of the Code of Conduct.<o:p></o:p>