YAW SELORM vs. THE COMMISSIONER, REVENUE AUTHORITY [2019]DLCA6334

Date	2019-02-21
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.: H1/271/2018
Citation No.	[2019]DLCA6334

F. KUSI-APPIAH JA (PRESIDING)

B. F. ACKAH-YENSU JA

M. M. AGYEMANG JA

MR. GORDON C. AKPADIE FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

THE COMMISSIONER GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY FOR DEFT/RESPONDENT

[2019]DLCA6334
																																						<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" >YAW SELORM <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE
COMMISSIONER, REVENUE AUTHORITY<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, KUMASI]<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.:
H1/271/2018 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 21st
FEBRUARY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>MR.
GORDON C. AKPADIE FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT<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">

THE
COMMISSIONER, GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY FOR DEFT/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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

F.
KUSI-APPIAH, JA (PRESIDING), B. F. ACKAH-YENSU, JA AND M. M. AGYEMANG, JA<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;mso-outline-level:1;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>B.
ACKAH-YENSU, JA<o:p></o:p>This appeal lies
from the decision of the High Court (Labour &amp; Industrial Division), Accra
dated 3rd March, 2017.&nbsp; The
fundamental issue for determination in the appeal turns on whether or not the
termination of the Plaintiff/Appellant’s appointment by the Defendant/Respondent
was in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of Service for Staff of Defendant/Respondent.&nbsp; The collateral issue that flows from the
fundamental issue is whether or not the Plaintiff/Appellant is entitled to his
claim as endorsed on the writ of summons.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Background
Facts<o:p></o:p>The facts giving
rise to this appeal are as follows. &nbsp;Following an incident on 26th March
2009 involving the interception of a vehicle loaded with uncustomed goods at
Techiman, Plaintiff/Appellant (to be referred to hereafter simply as
“Appellant”), a Preventive/Operational Officer of Defendant/Respondent (also to
be referred to hereafter as “Respondent”) was queried for alleged
unprofessional conduct which resulted in short collection of revenue; to which query
he replied.&nbsp; By a letter dated 19th
May, 2009 Appellant was interdicted alongside four other persons and
subsequently appeared before a Committee of Enquiry.&nbsp; On 5th May 2011, Appellant wrote
to Respondent to appeal to them to be recalled to duty since nothing had been
communicated to him as at that time.&nbsp;
Appellant again wrote to Respondent on 2nd January, 2014 with
the same appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Prior to writing the
last letter however, Appellant caused his lawyer to write to Respondent on 18th
December, 2012, to make a demand for payment of outstanding salary arrears and
other benefits which Appellant claimed was due him.&nbsp; Upon the failure of Respondent to heed to
this demand, Appellant applied to the High Court (Human Rights Division),
Accra, for an Order for Judicial Review in the nature of Mandamus.&nbsp; The court, on 29th February, 2013
granted the application and Respondent was ordered to comply with the terms of
its own Memorandum dated 9th May, 2009.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In response to Appellant’s
letter informing them about the Court Order, Respondent on 10th
April 2013 wrote to Appellant’s lawyer, inter
alia, that Appellant had since 15th January, 2013 been dismissed
from Respondent’s employment. &nbsp;Appellant’s lawyer responded to this letter on
10th February, 2016 demanding compliance with the Court Order.&nbsp; It was upon the failure of Respondent to make
the payment as demanded that Appellant instituted the action at the High Court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In delivering
itself the trial Court dismissed the Appellant’s claim in its entirety. The
claim was for:<o:p></o:p>“a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A declaration of the court that the
plaintiff’s continued interdiction is unlawful.<o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs</main>