Aboagye v Ghana Commercial Bank Ltd. 2001-2002 SCGLR 797

Material Facts:

The plaintiff/respondent/appellant, hereafter the plaintiff, was an employee of the defendant/appellant/respondent, hereafter the defendant. The plaintiff, as an employee of the defendant bank, allegedly signed a draft issued in favour of a customer who did not have sufficient funds in its account and also failed to debit a customer’s account after authorising payments on behalf of the customer. On discovering this, the Inspector/Audit Division of the defendant bank issued two queries to the plaintiff asking for explanations. After the plaintiff responded to these queries, he was subsequently suspended.

The Disciplinary Committee of the defendant bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff, and without giving him a hearing of the proceedings or notice of same, recommended that he be warned for negligence of duty and his salary reduced. These recommendations were forwarded to the Executive Committee of the defendant bank, which, without also giving the plaintiff a hearing, also recommended further salary reduction. The new recommendation was then forwarded to the Board of Directors, which proceeded to dismiss the plaintiff also without giving him a hearing.

Procedural History:

The plaintiff’s action in the High Court for wrongful dismissal contrary to the rules of natural justice and the staff rules of the defendant bank succeeded. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the enquiries given to the plaintiff amounted to giving him a chance to defend himself, and he should have also known that he could request a chance to be heard. He appeals to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the dismissal of the plaintiff was contrary to the rules of natural justice?

2. If yes, whether or not a decision contrary to the rules of natural justice is void.

Arguments of the Defendant:

1. That he was heard because he was given a query that he answered, admitting his negligence.
2. That when the appellant was given the query, given his experience, he knew or ought to have known that investigations were going on, and so he could have requested a personal hearing if he in fact needed it.

Holding:

1. The dismissal of the plaintiff was contrary to the rules of natural justice.

2. A decision contrary to natural justice is void.

Ratio Decidendi:

In the Osborn’s Concise Law Dictionary, natural justice is defined as follows:

The courts in the interest of fairness impose certain obligations upon those with power to take decisions affecting other people. These obligation arise from the rules of natural justice which although "sadly lacking in precision have generally been subsumed under two heads, the audi alteram partem" rule and the nemo judex in sua" rule. By virtue of these rules decision makers must act fairly, in good faith and without bias and must afford each party the opportunity to adequately state his case

Generally, a decision-making authority does not have the jurisdiction to make decisions that offend the rules of natural justice. Consequently, any decision made in breach of the rules of natural justice is void.

Specifically, the rule of audi alterem partem requires that the accused person be given a fair hearing and notice of the actual charges against him and be given the opportunity to present his defence. This rule finds recognition in Article 19(1), (3), and (13) of the 1992 Constitution.

In criminal cases, Article 19(1) of the 1992 Constitution provides that:

A person charged with a criminal offence shall be given a fair hearing within reasonable time by the court.

This provision is further expanded in Article 19(3), which reads:

The trial of a person charged with a criminal offence shall take place in his presence unless

1. He refuse to appear before the court for the trial to be conducted in his presence after he has been duly notified of the trial: or
2. He conducts himself in such a manner as to render the continuation of the proceedings in his presence impracticable and the court orders him to be removed for the trial to proceed in his absence.

Further, Article 19(13) deals with the duties of adjudicating authorities and also provides that:

An adjudicating authority for the determination of the existence or extent of a civil right or obligation shall, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, be established by law and shall be independent and impartial; and where proceedings for determination are instituted by a person before such an adjudicating authority, the case shall be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time.

The net effect of the above provisions is that:

All courts and adjudicating authorities, are required to give a fair hearing, this requires that notice of proceedings be given to the person affected by any decision of the adjudicating authority and that he be given the opportunity to defend himself.

In the present case, the disciplinary authorities of the defendant bank failed to give the plaintiff a hearing, and this is fatal to their decision to dismiss. Their lordships disagree with the proposition that the enquiries amounted to a hearing.

Principles in Case:

1. Natural justice consists of the twin rules of audi alterem partem and the nemo judex in causa sua.
2. The audi alterem partem rule requires that the accused person be given a fair hearing and notice of the actual charges against him and be given the opportunity to present his defence.
3. The nemo judex in causa sua rule states that “No man should be a judge in his own cause. This rule is designed to eliminate bias and to ensure fairness in the hearing of a case against an alleged offending persons facing a disciplinary inquiry.
4. An adjudicating authority shall be independent, impartial and any case brought before it shall be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time
5. A decision that violates the rules of natural justice is void.