RICHARD ASAMOAH vs. NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AUTHORITY [2020]DLCA16214

Date	2020-07-30
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO: H1/06/2020
Citation No.	[2020]DLCA16214

ANGELINA M. DOMAKYAAREH (MRS.) J A (PRESIDING)

ALEX B. POKU-ACHEAMPONG JA

SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU JA

ASARE ATUAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

STEPHEN OBENG DARKO LED BY ANNETTE O. ADUTWUM (MRS.) FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2020]DLCA16214
																																						<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" >RICHARD ASAMOAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AUTHORITY <o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO: H1/06/2020&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 30TH JULY, 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ASARE ATUAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

STEPHEN OBENG DARKO LED BY
ANNETTE O. ADUTWUM (MRS.) FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p>ANGELINA M. DOMAKYAAREH (MRS.) J A (PRESIDING), ALEX B.
POKU-ACHEAMPONG JA, SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU JA<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0in;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;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>&nbsp;DOMAKYAAREH
(MRS), JA:<o:p></o:p>[1] This appeal is against the judgment of
the High Court Sunyani dated 13th December 2018. In the said
judgment, the trial Judge dismissed the Claims of the Plaintiff/Appellant
herein against his former employer, the Defendant/Respondent herein. The Plaintiff/Appellant
will hereinafter be called the Appellant while the Defendant/Respondent will be
called the Respondent. <o:p></o:p>[2] What led to this state of affairs can
be deduced from the Writ of Summons and the accompanying Statement of Claim
issued by the Appellant against the Respondent and the Statement of Defence
filed by the Respondent in response to same.<o:p></o:p>[3] The Appellant’s case is that in August 2005,
he was permanently employed by the Respondent as the Public Relations Officer
(PRO) and assigned to the Techiman Municipal Mutual Health Insurance Scheme. He
said in May 2010, by a letter from the Regional Manager of the Respondent, he
was temporarily assigned to the Sene District Mutual Health Insurance Scheme to
assist the Manager and the Public Relation Officer there. The Appellant further
averred that in January 2011 he received another letter signed by the Chief
Executive of the Respondent seconding him to the Sene Scheme as the PRO
effective 1st February 2011. The Appellant said he duly complied
with all the directives in all the above letters and carried out the duties of
those offices. The Appellant said in June 2015 his appointment was terminated
by the Respondent.<o:p></o:p>[4] The Appellant averred that according to
the Collective Agreement between his Employer and the Employees, Secondment is
to last for no more than 24 months and where it becomes necessary to extend
same it shall be extended for a period not exceeding another 24 months. The Appellant
said he never received any letter from the Respondent extending his Secondment
at the Sene Scheme and all efforts made by him to get him to be taken back to
his position at the Techiman Scheme were unsuccessful. <o:p></o:p>[5] It is the Appellant’s case that sometime
in March 2014, he received a Query from the District Manager of the Sene Scheme
which he duly answered and pursuant to that, in March 2015 he was invited by
the Respondent to appear before the Disciplinary Committee of the Respondent.
The Appellant said he appeared before the Disciplinary Committee but the Committee
did not question or investigate him on the matters raised in the Query and his
answers thereto. The Appellant said in June 2015 he received a letter from the Respondent
terminating his appointment on the ground that it had accepted the report of
the Disciplinary Committee. The Appellant contended that the Disciplinary Committee
could not have made any adverse findings whatsoever against him and to that
effect, same could not have been the basis for the termination of his
appointment. <o:p></o:p>[6] The Appellant said he petitioned the
National Council of the Respondent on the purported termination of his
employment but same was treated with contempt. The Appellant complained that
the Respondent’s conduct in keeping him at Sene contrary to the provisions of
the Collective Agreement without any allowance or compensation whatsoever
caused him so much distress and inconvenience which the Respondent must be made
to pay for. He stated further that the purported termination of his appointment
has caused him so much distress, pain, loss and damage for which he must also
be compensated.<o:p></o:p>[7] The Appellant therefore Claimed three
reliefs against the Respondent as follows;<o:p></o:p>