Procedural Impropriety; The Ground for Possibly Quashing the Decision So Made

INTRODUCTION

Without prejudice whatsoever, this article is purposely written to as it were analyse or evaluate some decision which appeared to me as ‘improper’ and affront to the principles of natural justice and common-law rules. As a matter of particularity, this article tries to analyse the strict application and compliance with the provisions in pages 97-99 of the Human Resource Operational Manual of the Local Government Service. Hans Kelsen (1881-1973) was a leading German-American legal positivist. His major works on legal positivism were the General Theory of Law and State and the Pure Theory of Law. Hans Kelsen was a legal positivist. The “positivity” of law, in his words, lies in the fact that it is created and annulled by acts of human beings, thus being independent of morality and similar norm systems. This constitutes the difference between positive law and natural law, which, like morality, is deduced from a presumably self-evident basic norm which is considered to be the expression of the “will of nature” or of “pure reason.”‘ [1]Kelsen labelled his theory of positive law “the pure theory of law.” He explained the nature of its purity: [I]t seeks to preclude from the cognition of positive law all elements foreign thereto. The limits of this subject and its cognition must be clearly fixed in two directions: the specific science of law, the discipline usually called juris prudence, must be distinguished from the philosophy of justice, on the one hand, and from sociology, or cognition of social reality, on the other.[2] The pure theory of law should be distinguished from the philosophy of justice. While the pure theory of law is a science, justice is an “irrational ideal” and “a judgment of value, determined by emotional factors and therefore subjective in character.”” The pure theory of law must also be distinguished from sociological jurisprudence.[3]

DEFINITION OF PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY

Procedural impropriety, simply put, is the situation whereby a decision made by a court or a judicial body suffers from procedural fairness. A decision that suffers from procedural impropriety, the courts in Ghana have said is one that was arrived at or made, by failing to act with procedural fairness towards the person who will be affected by the decision. A failure on the part of a public authority to act in accordance with the requirements of procedural fairness and in compliance with the common-law rules of natural justice.[4] In Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (HL) the terms procedural impropriety, illegality, and irrationality were used to denote the common-law grounds or heads of judicial review of administrative action. In the Ghanaian case of George Akpass v Ghana Commercial Bank Ltd. Facts: The appellant challenged his dismissal by a writ at the High Court, Accra. He sought a declaration that his dismissal was unlawful, reinstatement with full benefits, compensation for unlawful dismissal, damages, costs, and solicitor’s fees, In the alternative, he asked for payment of his end of service benefits from 20th May 2009, interest on the amount at the prevailing commercial bank rate and any other reliefs the court may deem fit. He contended that entries he passed to disburse the loan facility for the purchase of a vehicle by the bank’s customer and letters he wrote or co-signed to the bank’s customer were under the instructions of the bank’s branch manager, Rev Duke Commey who was given authority by management to determine appellant’s duties. The respondent disputed this assertion and insisted that appellant failed to comply with the staff responsibilities as set out in his appointment letter, bank’s books of instructions, service rules, circulars, policy guidelines and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).[5] Held: The court (Supreme Court) speaking through Pwamang JSC re-instated the applicant and quashed or set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal.

In Yaw Bani v Prime Investment and Engineering Services Ltd Facts: The plaintiff was the defendant company’s Inland Container Depot (or “ICD”) officer stationed at Kumasi. He was in charge of the defendant’s inland container depot there.  By a letter of September 19, 2006, the defendant terminated the plaintiff’s appointment.[6]  The letter based the justification for this action on the findings made by a subcommittee set up by the defendant to inquire into the matter.  The subcommittee had made the finding that the plaintiff had failed to exercise the required supervision over the Kumasi depot by allowing an unauthorized third party truck to be brought into the depot, contrary to company policy. This incident triggered the setting up of an investigative sub-committee by the defendant to inquire into it and the plaintiff’s employment was terminated The plaintiff’s action against the defendant on these facts was dismissed in the High Court.  He appealed to the Court of Appeal.  The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, but varied the High Court judgment to the extent of awarding the plaintiff compensation for the defendant’s non-compliance with the relevant provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. The appellant being dissatisfied has appealed to this Court against the judgment of the Court of Appeal.[7] Held: The appellant argues that the judgment of the Court of Appeal was against the evidence on the record.  There are concurrent findings by the two courts below that the appellant put the defendant at enormous risk and there was evidence from the findings of the subcommittee that could serve as a credible basis for the conclusions of the two courts.  Accordingly, there is no basis for disturbing those findings. This ground is without merit and should be dismissed. In the result, we dismiss all the appellant’s grounds of appeal.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed in its entirety as being unencumbered by any merit.[8]

FORMS OF ABSENTEEISM

1. Culpable Absenteeism: This refers to lateness and absence problems for which the worker should be held responsible because it is within their power to control and address. The forms of Culpable Absenteeism are:
2. Lateness/ leave early;
3. Failure to notify;

iii. Absence without leave;

1. Abuse of leave.

In addressing these, management should ensure that procedures are clear, reasonable and consistent and to be observed by all workers. [9]

1. Non-culpable (innocent) Absenteeism: This refers to absence of workers due to illness or injury, for reasons beyond their control. Also, during inclement weather such as a rain storm or in other extreme weather conditions where some roads are damaged and puts the worker at risk, supervisors may be contacted for advice and some degree of lateness may be tolerated. Innocent absenteeism may not be subject to disciplinary action, but a worker may present a medical report to justify his/her absence. The LGS may have to establish a benchmark to determine the national average for days lost due to illness/injury per annum. This would help in determining the number of days a worker who is injured or ill would be entitled.[10]

Purpose/ Objectives

The policy is intended to establish requirements for reporting absences, to provide guidelines for handling excessive and or unscheduled absences and to outline the LGS’s responsibilities to establish work schedules to maintain efficient, effective operations in order to reduce absenteeism and lateness.[11]

Scope/Coverage

This policy applies to all employees, of the LGS.

Responsibility/Authority.

All RCDs, DCDs and Heads of DDUs.

Procedures

Workers are expected to be at their place of work ready to work at the scheduled time. Without good reasons, absenteeism and lateness are subject to disciplinary action.[12]

Measures to Improve Attendance to Work

1. i) Management to set example for workers to emulate by attending to work daily and on time;
2. ii) Allow limited time off for personal errands on request. This facility should be Infrequent to forestall setting a precedent.

iii)  Establish a “carrot-and- stick” policy to reward excellent attendees and punish frequent absentees.

1. iv) Establish incentive packages to reward punctuality and at the same time strict rules to punish latecomers and absentees.
2. v) Establish time records and institute warning forms;
3. vi) Establish policies with clear expectations on leave with details on its management;

vii) Workers must “clock in” and “clock out” on daily basis;

viii) Periodically, the LGS shall review policies on lateness and absenteeism.[13]

Penalties/sanctions

Step 1: At the first and second instances of unscheduled absence and lateness, the worker receives verbal counseling;

Step 2: When a worker accumulates three unscheduled lateness and absence in a three-month period, worker receives a written warning;

Step 3: Any two occurrences in the next three months will result in a one-day suspension without pay;

Step 4: Any two additional occurrences in the next three months will result in dismissal.[14]

STRICT INTERPRETATION, APPLICATION AND COMPLIANCE

INTERPRETATION

Meaning of Interpretation

Interpretation of a statute is “a journey of discovery” by which the courts determine the meaning of a statutory provision for the purpose of applying it to a given set of facts. This process must be distinguished from construction of a statute, which is the process by which the court resolves uncertainties or ambiguities in a statute (Penalties/sanctions steps as enshrined in the LGS HR Operational Manual). These two processes, though technically different, are in practice indistinguishable because disputes normally occur when there is some uncertainty about or ambiguity in a statute. In resolving these, the court will inevitably give meaning to the words of the statute (LGS HR Operational Manual). Thus, the two processes normally go hand in hand.[15]

RULES OF INTERPRETATION

Generally, the rules governing or regulating interpretation of statutes, constitution or any documents of legal effects are given as The Literal Rule, The Golden Rule, and The Mischief Rule.

The Literal Rule

The court usually starts its interpretation of a statute by applying the literal rule. This rule is to the effect that the intention of Parliament (the law making chamber) must be found in the plain, ordinary or grammatical meaning of the words used in the statute (LGS HR Operational Manual, page 99) regardless of whether the result is sensible or not. In fact, the meaning of what is meant by giving a word its ordinary meaning was explained by Brobbey JSC in Republic v Fast Track Court, Accra, ex parte CHRAJ (Anane, Interested Party) as follows:[16]

It is not the meaning of that a person will find by a research into technical books or arcane source. That will be far beyond the comprehension of the ordinary man. The ordinary meaning will be the meaning which any ordinary man on the street will understand by that word or the sense which he/she will attribute to that word which is the sense in which it will be used by that ordinary man. In the normal run of affairs, the ordinary man will approach the dictionary for the meaning if he has any doubt about the meaning of the word.

Imperatively, it must be stated with maximum clarity that, the court is not concerned with the propriety of the legislature; in fact, its duty is to administer and interpret and give effect to the statute even if the terms appear unpalatable. In this regard, the maxim judis est jus dicere sed non dare (it is the function of the judge to apply the law, not to make it) applies. As put by Kludze JSC in Republic v Fast Track High Court, Accra; ex parte Daniel:[17]

Even in the area of statutory interpretation, we cannot amend a piece of legislation because we dislike its terms or because we suppose that the law giver was mistaken or unwise. Our responsibility is greater when we interpret the Constitution. We cannot and must not substitute our wisdom for the collective wisdom of the framers of the Constitution.

It is indispensable, however, to emphasize that, words (the 4-penalty/sanction steps stated at page 99 of the LGS HR Operational Manual) should be construed in the same literal sense wherever they appear in the statute. The court will rely on the standard dictionaries to help it in finding the literal meaning of a word. The literal rule of interpretation is paramount, and all other rules, principles or presumptions are subordinate to it.[18]

The Golden Rule

As known from the discussion of the literal rule, that rule deals with cases where the language of a statute is free from equivocation or ambiguity. But language is rarely as free from ambiguity as to be incapable of being used in more than one sense. Consequently, strict adherence to the literal rule of construction would in many cases miss the real meaning of the words in a statute. In fact, where the language of a statute is ambiguous, the golden rule may be of use to interpret it in order to ascertain the intention of the legislature.[19] Classically, the golden rule allows for a departure from the literal rule when the application of the statutory words in their ordinary sense would be repugnant to or inconsistent with some other provision in the statute, or will lead to an absurdity so glaring that it could never have been contemplated by the legislature, or where it would lead to a result contrary to the intention of the legislature as shown by the context or by some other considerations as the court is justified in taking into account. Instructively, the usual consequence of applying the golden rule is that words, which are in the statute, are ignored or words, which are not there are read into it.[20] In Ababio v The Republic, the court was to interpret paragraph 5A of the Chieftaincy (Amendment) (No. 3) Decree 1969. The said paragraph provided, inter alia, that:

“(1) Any person who contravenes any provision of this Decree shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing…a person shall be deemed to have contravened the provisions of this decree if-

(a) he refuses or fails to recognize the relationship referred to in paragraph 2 of this Decree or refuses or fails to pay such allegiance as flows from the existence of such relationship;

(b) without reasonable excuse (the proof of which shall be on him) he fails to attend meeting of the Traditional Council…”

In fact, the court in interpreting “any person” in the above paragraph held that the phrase cannot bear its ordinary literal meaning as persons in general because such a meaning would create an absurd situation where any person, not necessarily a chief, could be prosecuted under the Decree if he failed, for example, to honour an invitation to attend a meeting of a traditional council. The court interpreted the phrase to mean persons who had been demoted as paramount chiefs and whose stools had been specified in the schedule to the Decree. In the English case of Re Sigsworth, the golden rule was used to deny a murderer from inheriting on the intestacy of his victim although he was, as her son, her “sole issue” on the literal interpretation of section 46 of the Administration of Estates Act, 1925.[21]

Indispensably, it must be stated that, there are two (2) possible approaches to the use of the golden rule:

(a) Narrow approach. This provides that only where the language of the statute is ambiguous can the court construe it so as to avoid an absurd result. (See General Cold Industry Ltd v Standard Bank Ghana Ltd, State v Robinson for more insights).

(b) Wider approach. This permits a departure from the clear, unambiguous language of a statute, if to do otherwise would lead to a glaring absurdity obviously never contemplated by the legislature. This approach is represented by the dictum of Denning L.J. (as he then was) in the English case of Francis Jackson Development Ltd. v Hall. He said:

“If the literal interpretation of a statute leads to a result which Parliament can never have intended, the courts must reject that interpretation and seek for some other interpretation which does not give effect to the intention of Parliament.” (See Sasu v Amua-Sekyi, R v Allen, R v Takawria & Ors for more insights).[22]

The Mischief Rule

This rule is also known as the rule in Heydon’s case. It enables the court to adopt an interpretation, which is likely to give effect to the purpose or reform, which the statute is intended to achieve.[23] In Heydon’s case, it was said that four things must be considered before the rule is applied. These are:

(a) What was the common law before the making of the Act?

(b) What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide?

(c) What remedy has Parliament prescribed to remedy the defect? And

(d) The true reason of the remedy.

Now, having considered the above, the court is enjoined to construe the statute so as to suppress the mischief, advance the remedy and to suppress subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of the mischief. These four things were reformulated by Lord Diplock in the English case of Jones v Wrotham Park Settled Estate as follows:[24]

(a) It must be possible to determine from the consideration of the Act as a whole precisely the mischief that it was the purpose of the Act to remedy.

(b) It must be apparent that the draftsman and Parliament had inadvertently overlooked, and so omitted to deal with the mischief, an eventuality that required to be dealt with if the purpose of the Act was to be achieved.

(c) It must be possible to state with certainty what were the additional words that would have been inserted by the draftsman and approved by Parliament had the omission been drawn to their attention.

Again, it is worthy of mentioning that, Bennion has also reformulated the rule as follows:

A purposive construction of an enactment is one which gives effect to the legislative purpose by-

(a) following the literal meaning of the enactment where that meaning is in accordance with the legislative purpose (in this code called purposive-and-literal construction) or

(b) applying a strained meaning where the literal meaning is not in accordance with the legislative purpose (in this code called a purposive-and-strained construction).”[25]

In my respectful view, in interpreting the wording of the penalties/sanctions as captured in page 99 of the Local Government Service Human Resource Operational Manual, Step 1: At the first and second instances of unscheduled absence and lateness, the worker receives verbal counseling; Step 2: When a worker accumulates three unscheduled lateness and absence in a three month period, worker receives a written warning; Step 3: Any two occurrences in the next three months will result in a one day suspension without pay; and Step 4: Any two additional occurrences in the next three months will result in dismissal, the literal rule of interpretation should be used since they are unambiguous and plain.[26]

APPLICATION OF PENALTIES/SANCTIONS

Illustration 1. An employee or a worker of a Municipal Assembly was served with a query that he had absented himself from work for 4 days without permission. In fact, the particularities (i.e. specific days, specific month or months) of those 4 days were not stated in the query. In response to the query, the worker gave his reason for absenting himself from work without permission for such a number of days as being ill and informed his immediate superior. The Municipal Co-ordinating Director not satisfied with the worker’s response to his query, further constituted a committee to invite the worker for further questioning. Upon the worker’s engagement with the committee, he averted the minds of the committee members to a grievous procedural impropriety which they agreed with him in the first instance. The worker therefore, respectfully and humbly suggested to the committee to set aside the query and also remove same from his records. The committee members told the worker that they were not in the capacity to do what the worker wanted them to do because they were only playing fiduciary role for and on behalf of the MCD.

Now, in strict application of the penalties/sanctions steps, the Municipal Co-ordinating Director through the Human Resource Manager stepped aside the Step 1 of the punishment procedure as explicitly stated in the LGS HR Operational Manual page 99. The worker in the illustration supra sought to challenge the propriety of the procedure by referring to the HR Manager the Step 1 which provision says or states that, at the first instances of unscheduled absence and lateness, the worker should be given verbal counseling. In fact, there was clear violation of the Step 1. The worker determinedly insisted that, he had not received any verbal warning from the MCD through the HR Manager to warrant his query.

THE MUNICIPAL CO-ORDINATING DIRECTOR’S / HR MANAGER’S DEFENCE

Interestingly, the Municipal Co-ordinating Director files a defence by stating that, per the records available at the HR Department, the worker’s 4-day absence from work was without permission and that warranted him to serve the worker a written warning (query) which is captured in Step 2 of the penalties/sanction procedure at page 99 of the LGS HR Operational Manual.[27] Procedurally, this is wrong! In fact, in law, this is a clear case of procedural impropriety which has the highest potency of rendering a decision so made null and void. This also calls for judicial review in an administrative/court decision. As if that was not funny enough, the HR Manager also comes with the defence that, the previous Municipal Co-ordinating Director had served the worker with a verbal counseling so that was sufficient ground for the current MCD to issue the written warning (query) to the worker. This is pathetically wrong! In fact, this assertion by the HR Manger has no place in law! Now, the legal question is, does the decision of the Municipal Co-ordinating Director or any administrative officer have binding effect? To answer this question, under Article 129 of the Constitution, 1992 (1) The Supreme Court shall be the final court of appeal and shall have such appellate and other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by this Constitution or by any other law. (2) The Supreme Court shall not be bound to follow the decisions of any other court. (3) The Supreme Court may, while treating its own previous decisions as normally binding, depart from a previous decision when it appears to it right to do so; and all other courts shall be bound to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court on questions of law. (4) For the purposes of hearing and determining a matter within its jurisdiction and the amendment, execution or the enforcement of a judgment or order made on any matter, and for the purposes of any other authority, expressly or by necessary implication given to the Supreme Court by this Constitution or any other law, the Supreme Court shall have all the powers, authority and jurisdiction vested in any court established by this Constitution or any other law.[28] Glaringly, from the article quoted supra, the decision of the previous MCD has no binding effect whatsoever. Therefore, the written warning (query) served on the worker in the illustration 1 supra was extremely wrong in terms of procedure. In fact, constitutionally it was so wrong. (see the Awuni v W.A.E.C and Aboagye v G.C.B cases for useful insights).[29]

Effect of decision of a previous Administrative Officer/MCD

In law, the decision of a lower administrative body or court has no binding effect. However, the only effect of such decisions is for persuasive purposes and nothing more nothing less. In essence, any current administrative officer/MCD is allowed by law and convention to depart from the decision of the previous administrative officer/MCD.

COMPLIANCE

From the Oxford Dictionary, compliance is the action or fact of complying with a wish or command. Cambridge Dictionary also defines compliance as the act of doing everything that someone tells or wants you to do. Now, narrowing it down for the purposes of this article, it is highly expected of the MCD through the HR Manger of the said Municipal Assembly to ensure that, the provisions as stated in page 99 of the LGS HR Operational Manual are complied with. In fact, it must be stated for the emphasis that, no step should be jumped over for any reason, purpose, mischief whatsoever. In the case of the worker-MCD/HR Manager in illustration 1 as discussed already, it was discovered that, the MCD/HR Manager jumped over the Step 1and went to apply Step 2 for their own purposes and intents. In fact, in applying sanctions or penalties or punishment, there should be procedural fairness, equity, justice and harmony of laws with the supreme law (Constitution) of the land.

QUERY

According to the Oxford Dictionary, query is a question, especially one expressing doubt or requesting information. From the perspective of the query served on the worker by the HR Manager under the instruction of the Municipal Co-ordinating Director, everything was wrong about it. In fact, it was flawed with severe procedural impropriety. The content of the query was also vague in other words, ambiguous. What is the meaning of “you have absented yourself from work for 4 days without permission?” Again, 4 days in which month/months? Which days are those 4 days as stated in that dangerously flawed query?

PERMISSION

From the Merriam-Webster, permission means 1. The act of permitting, 2. Formal consent: authorization. Now, one key word that featured prominently in that bogus query was “permission.” In the response of the worker to the query, the worker opined that, he got his immediate supervisor aware of his absence from work owing to ill-health. Now, under the reasonability test, can any reasonable person or man tell me that a sick worker should report to work with his sickness however less serious it is? Now, the HR Manager seems to suggest that, the worker calling his immediate supervisor on phone to seek his permission to absent himself from work because of ill-health was unacceptable and same cannot be countenanced by his office.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In our traditional settings, there is a saying that, when there is a disease, there is also a cure. In that light, this article seeks to respectfully come out with the following recommendations as antidotes to cure the wounded justice:

(1) There should be proper coordination between the HR Department and all other unit/department heads of the Assembly.

(2) The HR Department should make it a policy to prioritize the welfare and well-being of the workers/staff of the Assembly.

(3) There should be regular or routine health screening of the staff initiated by the HR Department as an aspect of health and safety of employees/workers of the Assembly.

(4) It highly recommended that, the HR Department engages workers/staff in dialogue instead of arbitral use of power or authority in applying sanctions or penalties on a defaulted worker(s). This will afford the HR Department the opportunity to elicit more cogent and useful information about the welfare of the worker(s)/staff of the Assembly.

(5) The HR Department should as a matter of urgency, incorporate oral, verbal or unofficial means of seeking permission to absent oneself from work for whatever reason the victim worker(s) may have.

 

CONCLUSION

I want to conclude my harmless, non-maligning, non-acrimonious and non-antagonistic article by reiterating the fact that, in law, whenever a procedure is woven with unfairness, the legal remedies available to cure such a situation are: (1) to quash the decision so made and (2) to review the decision so made (Judicial review). From the analysis of the flawed or tainted query served on the worker in the illustration, the best thing that should have been done by the MCD through the HR Manager was to follow their own document which is the LGS HR Operational Manual, page 99 and apply the steps provided thereof. I want to also re-emphasize the fact that, the decisions of a previous administrative officer/MCD have no binding effect on the current administrative officer/MCD. In the practice of the current administrative officer/MCD, he or she can only draw some inspirations from such previous decisions. The only legal effect of those decisions are for persuasive purposes. It is emphasized that a worker can seek permission from his or her immediate supervisor whether orally or officially especially where an emergency situation like sickness has cropped up. Imperatively, it must be stated that, analyzing the nature of the query, it grievously violates the principle of natural justice and the right to fair hearing of the worker in the illustration. In fact, there is a glaring constitutional violation to the fundamental human rights and freedoms of the worker as enshrined in Chapter 5 Article 12 of the Constitution, 1992. Also, the discretionary power of the Municipal Co-ordinating Direction as enshrined in Article 296 of the Constitution, 1992 has be abused. In fact, it has been exercised capriciously and arbitrarily.

Justice Reuben Adusei

(A Final year LLB (Bachelor of Laws) student at the Kaaf University College, Accra)

 

[1] Henry Cohen

[2] Henry Cohen

[3] Henry Cohen

[4] Council for the Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985]

[5] Apkass v Ghana Commercial Bank Ltd

[6] Yaw Bani v Prime Investment Engineering Services Ltd

[7] Yaw Bani v Prime Investment Engineering Services Ltd

[8] Yaw Bani v Prime Investment Engineering Service Ltd

[9] Local Government Service-Human Resource-Operational Manual, page 97

[10] Local Government Service-Human Resource-Operational Manual, page 98

[11] Local Government Service-Human Resource-Operational Manual, page 98

[12] Local Government Service-Human Resource-Operational Manual, page 98

[13] Local Government Service-Human Resource-Operational Manual, page 98

[14] Local Government Service-Human Resource-Operational Manual, page 99

[15] In his book: The Ghana Legal System Second Edition, Emmanuel Kwabena Quansah, pages 336

[16] In his book: The Ghana Legal System Second Edition, Emmanuel Kwabena Quansah, pages 339 & 340

[17] In his book: The Ghana Legal System Second Edition, Emmanuel Kwabena Quansah, page 340

[18] In his book: The Ghana Legal System Second Edition, Emmanuel Kwabena Quansah, page 340

[19] In his book: The Ghana Legal System Second Edition, Emmanuel Kwabena Quansah, page 345

[20] In his book: The Ghana Legal System Second Edition, Emmanuel Kwabena Quansah, page 345

[21] Section 46 of the Administration of Estates Act, 1925

[22] In his book: The Ghana Legal System Second Edition, Emmanuel Kwabena Quansah, pages 346-350

[23] In his book: The Ghana Legal System Second Edition, Emmanuel Kwabena Quansah, pages 352

[24] In his book: The Ghana Legal System Second Edition, Emmanuel Kwabena Quansah, pages 353

[25] In his book: The Ghana Legal System Second Edition, Emmanuel Kwabena Quansah, pages 354

[26] Local Government Service-Human Resource Operational Manual, page 99

[27] LGS HR Operational Manual, page 99

[28] Article 129 of the Constitution, 1992

[29] See Awuni v W.A.E.C and Aboagye v G.C.B