From George Ernest Asare, Kumasi
THE Kumasi High Court, presided over by Mr Justice Iddrisu Mahamadu, has dismissed an application filed by Dr Nicholas Osei of the Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital (KATH) seeking a number of reliefs, including GH¢200,000 damages against the hospital for unfair treatment.
The applicant was praying the court to impose damages on the hospital for what he described as “monstrous, monumental and blatantly illegal conduct by the hospital”.
He also asked the court to declare the exclusion of his name from the duty roster of the Polyclinic Directorate of the hospital as unlawful, illegal, discriminatory and arbitrary, which infringes on common law and against his constitutional rights.
Dr Osei also asked for an order from the court to restrain the hospital from taking any punitive action against him for asserting his legal rights in court and also sought relief from the court to restrain the KATH and its agents from impeding him in any manner from asserting and enjoying all rights and privileges as a Senior Medical Officer at the Polyclinic Directorate.
The applicant further asked for an order of mandamus from the court to compel authorities of KATH to include his name on the duty roster and accord him all rights and privileges arising from and attendant to his status as a Senior Medical Officer at the Directorate.
Joined in the suit were the Chief Executive of the KATH, the Medical Director and the Head of the Directorate.
In his affidavit to support his claims, Dr Osei noted that the respondents who had a legal duty to ensure the good and orderly administration of the hospital removed his name from their duty roster in November 2009.
He explained that he had never been informed about any absence or lateness to work nor been questioned of any misconduct regarding his professional performance or attitude as a Senior Medical Officer
Dismissing the application, Justice Mahamadu described it as misconceived, premature, speculative and untenable.
Explaining his action, Justice Mahamadu said the respondents included the name of the applicant in their duty roster in November 2009, “ except that they did not assign him any responsibilities”.
He said in the same month, another medical officer, Dr Francis Danso, was also not assigned any tasks, “so it would seem that the act complained of by the applicant did not affect him alone, and so cannot be described as discriminatory”.
He said the respondents also proved in their submission that they queried the applicant on two occasions, asking him to explain his absence from work on specific occasions and further wrote to him complaining about his persistent lateness.
“ In both private and public institutions, there must be rules and regulations by which management and staff streamline their relationship to ensure efficient and effective work or service,” he noted.
“These often take the form of a Code of Conduct and or Collective Agreement, which spells out guidelines for rewarding hard work and excellence and punishments for various types of misconduct. They embody grievance-resolution procedures as well,” he explained.
Dismissing his claims that his rights and privileges had been abused, the court held that counsel for the respondents had proved beyond doubt that no such rights and privileges had been abused because the applicant “ still enjoyed his salary and allowances and continues to live in his official accommodation”.
On the issue of an order seeking an injunction restraining the respondents from any manner impeding the applicant from asserting and enjoying all rights as a Senior Medical Officer at the Polyclinic Directorate , the court held that it was misconceived.
Explaining, Justice Mahamadu noted that “all the respondents have done is to assign him duties in November 2009 with reasons, and saying that he would hear from them the outcome of their deliberations on him as soon as a decision is reached.”
The court questioned why the applicant brought the respondents to court, “having conceded that the respondents have a legal duty to ensure the good and orderly administration of the said hospital. Would that not include the right to investigate and take disciplinary action against any staff member whose conduct they consider unacceptable?”
In dismissing all his claims, the court held that “there is no basis for the award of damages, whether token or punitive,” adding that the applicant failed to prove which act or deed of the respondents was in excess of their jurisdiction or against the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment