CHORO-PADOH KWANIMBI HAMZA vs. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [2020]DLCA8581

CHORO-PADOH KWANIMBI HAMZA vs. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND THE ATTORNEY... [2020]DLCA8581

Date	2020-01-30
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/89/2018
Citation No.	[2020]DLCA8581

A. LOVELACE-JOHNSON JSC (PRESIDING)

G. S. SUURBAAREH JA

N. C. A. AGBEVOR JA

GOERGINA MENSAH BONSU FOR APPELLANTS

NASHIRU YUSSIF FOR THE RESPODNENT

[2020]DLCA8581
																																						<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" >CHORO-PADOH KWANIMBI HAMZA<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
 (DEFENDANTS/
APPELLANTS)<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

CIVIL APPEAL NO.&nbsp; H1/89/2018&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;DATE: 30TH JAN, 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>GOERGINA MENSAH BONSU FOR APPELLANTS<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

NASHIRU YUSSIF FOR
THE RESPODNENT<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<a name="_Hlk2214123">A.
LOVELACE-JOHNSON JSC (PRESIDING)</a>, G. S. SUURBAAREH JA, N. C. A.
AGBEVOR JA<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>AVRIL LOVELACE-JOHNSON, JSC<o:p></o:p>I have read the judgment of
my brothers Suurbaareh JA. I also hold the opinion that the appeal in question
should be allowed for the following reasons. I will first consider the second
ground of appeal upon which the trial judge based her judgment.<o:p></o:p>This states as follows:<o:p></o:p>“The learned trial judge erred in law when she held that
the dismissal of the Plaintiff/Respondent by the Central Disciplinary Board was
null and void as the procedural requirement was breached”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On this ground, counsel for
the appellant submits in sum that in applying regulation 16(d) the learned
trial judge failed to advert her mind to the precondition in that regulation
and that it was this failure which led her to find that there had been a breach
of procedure. The precondition referred to being <o:p></o:p>“If the board is satisfied that the punishment which it
could provide would be inadequate or that it has insufficient disciplinary
authority to deal with the case”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In other words, since the <o:p></o:p>“Regional Disciplinary Board which tried the Plaintiff
had sufficient authority to deal with the matter and the board was in a
position to impose a punishment which was adequate to the offence committed.
Therefore the Regional Disciplinary Board did not have to report any facts to
the Central Disciplinary Board for the latter to formulate charges against the
Plaintiff/Respondent and nominate an officer to hear the case”. See pages 5 and 6 of the
written submissions of counsel for the Appellant. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The question that begs to
an answer then is why was a reference made to regulation 16(d) at all in
Respondent’s dismissal letter found at page 52 of the Record of Appeal if the
preconditions were not applicable to the Regional Disciplinary Board.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before discussing the
issue, I will like to make comments on two issues raised in the judgment of one
of my brothers. Counsel for the appellant did not make any allegation that the
reference to that regulation was a typographical mistake and a wrong reference.
She did not also raise any issue about the process used by the respondent to
air his grievance that is coming by a writ instead of an application for
certiorari as a ploy for circumventing the provisions regarding the time within
which to apply for judicial review under Order 55 of C I 47. This court was not
addressed on these issues as a result. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The position of the law is
that it is not up to a court to put forward a case for a party different from
what he has put forward. Again, if a decision of the court is going to be based
on an issue not raised by the parties but whose resolution is considered
necessary, both parties are entitled to an opportunity to address the court on
it unless the evidence on record is such as to make such an address
unnecessary. See<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Rule 9 of the Court of
Appeal rules C. I. 19<o:p></o:p>