G. O. T. DARKWAH V. COUNCIL FOR LAW REPORTING

JUDGMENT

ASUMAN-ADU, J.

The Plaintiff herein issued out a writ of summons accompanied by a statement of claim on 20th May, 2008 against the Defendant and two others for the following reliefs:

(1) A declaration that the unilateral withdrawal of the employment offer and consequent termination of the employment contract on 2nd May 2008 without notice to Plaintiff by the Defendant was wrongful, unfair, unjust, breach of contract, abuse of discretionary power and against the rules of natural justice and in contravention of the provisions of Article 23, Article 191(b) and Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution as well as Section 63 (4) of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651) respectively.

(2) An order for the full payment of all arrears of salary and allowances (including increments) from 1st May, 2008 up to the date of final judgment.

(3) Award of GH¢200,000.00 or any substantial amount of money as damages for breach of contract of employment.

(4) Award of GH¢50,000.00 or any substantial amount of money as general damages for loss of employment without just cause – due to failure to observe the rules of natural justice.

(5) Award of GH¢20,000.00 or any substantial amount of money as additional damages for defamation of character.

(6) An order for perpetual injunction to restrain the 1st Defendant from repeating such defamatory statements or making any further derogatory, scandalous and unsubstantiated statements about the Plaintiff.

(7) An order to compel both the 2nd and 3rd Defendants to remove the 1st Defendant from office as Editor of Ghana Law Reports for abuse of power, incompetence and bringing the corporate image of the Council for Law Reporting into disrepute.

(8) An order for the payment of interest (calculated at the prevailing bank rate) on all unpaid salaries and allowances from 1st May, 2008 up to the date of final payment.

(9) Award of GH¢3,000.00 or any substantial amount of money awarded at the discretion of the Court as costs against the Defendants.

(10) Such further or other relief(s) as to this honourable Court shall deem just.

The Defendants herein entered appearance and filed statements of defence denying Plaintiff’s claims.

Subsequently, on application 1st and 2nd Defendants were struck out as parties to the suit.

The case of the Plaintiff as per his pleadings and testimony in Court was that the Defendant advertised in the Daily Graphic of 10th September, 2007 inviting applications from suitably qualified persons for the vacant position of Secretary to the Board and Head of Administration at the Council for Law Reporting. The Plaintiff responded to the advert by submitting an application letter and curriculum vitae on 11th September, 2007 for consideration for the vacant position. On 23rd November, 2007 the Plaintiff received a letter from the Defendant inviting him for an interview on 6th December, 2007. Subsequently, the Plaintiff attended the interview.

About four months later the Plaintiff was offered the appointment by the Defendant to take effect from 1st May, 2008 per a letter dated 9th April 2008. The Plaintiff accepted the offer of employment on 14th April, 2008 and subsequently, tendered his resignation from his previous employment in anticipation of taking up his new job on 1st May, 2008.

Since Defendant’s offer letter indicated 1st May, 2008 as commencement date of the employment contract and his acceptance letter confirmed the same date as the commencement date the Plaintiff duly reported for duty on 1st May, 2008. However, because the day was a public holiday the offices were locked so the Plaintiff went back and reported for duty on 2nd May, 2008 at 8.00am. The Editor had not reported for work so the Plaintiff waited for him at the reception. Around 10.00am he reported for duty so the Plaintiff went to him at his office as having reported for work. The Editor, however, asked the Plaintiff to wait for him at the reception. At about one hour later the Editor called Plaintiff to his office and handed over to him a letter which indicated a ‘withdrawal of the offer of appointment with immediate effect’.

According to the Plaintiff the Editor stated in the said letter that he had found upon investigation that the Plaintiff misrepresented on his curriculum vitae and at the interview his position at Assene Household Enamelware Ltd (AHEL) and the erstwhile Bank for Housing and Construction (BHC) and that he was neither the Human Resources and Administrative Manager of AHEL nor was he ever the Personnel/Administrative Manager of BHC during the periods he claimed he was.

He claims that without any shred of evidence to substantiate his allegation, the Editor went on to cast insinuations and aspersions in an attempt to carelessly impugn his character by stating in the letter that “those deliberate misrepresentations were considered as a serious character flaw unbecoming of someone aspiring to be the Secretary and the Head of Administration of the Council for Law Reporting; and since those misrepresentations were the basis of the offer of employment ... the offer in the circumstances was void”.

The Plaintiff was extremely shocked by the false, unfounded and malicious allegation against him as well as the unilateral withdrawal of the offer of employment by the Defendant which was a breach of contract and in contravention of Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution. The unilateral withdrawal of the offer of employment by the Defendant also constitutes a blatant abuse of power and in violation of Article 35(8) of the 1992 Constitution.

The decision to terminate Plaintiff’s appointment without notice was done without giving him a fair hearing which is a breach of the natural justice rule. It was also an abuse of discretionary power and in contravention of Article 296 of the 1992 Constitution.

The reason assigned for terminating Plaintiff’s employment contract was factually incorrect, palpably mendacious and evidentially baseless and for that matter, legally invalid which makes the withdrawal of the offer, not only wrongful but also a nullity. The allusions, in the letter to impugn his character without any substantive, incontrovertible, proven evidence was not only damaging to his moral integrity, but also scandalous of his professional reputation and detrimental to his personal dignity which is tantamount to defamation of character.

The Plaintiff contends that the non-recognition of his status as an employee of the Defendant in the letter of withdrawal was not only a breach of contract, but also constituted an unfair termination of his employment and removal from office without just cause in total contravention of Article 191 (b) of the 1992 Constitution and Section 63 (4) of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651) respectively.

The Plaintiff further contends that when he was offered the job he had to resign from his previous job so the Defendant’s letter of withdrawal of his appointment has not only occasioned financial loss to him by depriving him of his livelihood, but also, it has exposed him to unwarranted emotional stress and loss of reputation among his friends and colleagues. He is as a result entitled to be paid damages for that. Also since he has been deprived the use of his salary and allowances due him he is entitled to be paid interest on those monies due him from 1st May, 2008 to date of judgment by the Defendant. The Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to his reliefs.

The Plaintiff tendered in evidence the following document in support of his case:

a. Exhibit A – A copy of a cutting of the advert in the Daily Graphic;

b. Exhibit B – A copy of Plaintiff’s application letter;

c. Exhibit C – A copy of Plaintiff’s curriculum vitae;

d. Exhibit D – A copy of a letter inviting Plaintiff for interview;

e. Exhibit E – A copy of the appointment letter;

f. Exhibit F – A copy of Plaintiff’s acceptance letter;

g. Exhibit G – A copy of Plaintiff’s resignation;

h. Exhibit H – A copy of the letter withdrawing Plaintiff’s appointment.

Defendant on the other hand denied the claims of the Plaintiff both in its statement of defence and in the testimony of Naa Netso Oku who testified on behalf of the Defendant. The Defendant claims that Plaintiff’s appointment was withdrawn on grounds of serious false representations he made about his work experience in his curriculum vitae for the post. So the appointment was initiated by fraud and Plaintiff cannot seek protection of the Courts to back or validate his fraud. By that reason his appointment was null and void.

The Defendant gave the particulars of fraud by contending that the Plaintiff with intent to deceive the Defendant into making the offer of appointment to him, made false representations to the Defendant in his curriculum vitae and also at the interview that he was the Human Resource Manager/Administrative Manager at Assene Household and Enamelware Ltd (AHEL) for the period 2000 to 2008 and also Personnel/Administrative Manager at the Bank for Housing and Construction for the period 1991 to 1998 when he well knew that those representations were false.

The Defendant goes on to contend that the Plaintiff knowingly and with intent to deceive the Defendant into making the offer of appointment concealed from the Defendant the fact that as part of his employment history, he had worked at the Management Development and Productivity Institute sometime between 2003 and 2004 and that his appointment was terminated shortly after his period of probation.

By these acts of false representations and concealment of a material fact of Plaintiff’s employment history, he fraudulently succeeded in getting the Defendant to make the offer of appointment to him. The offer of employment to the Plaintiff by the Defendant was, therefore, void so he is not entitled to the reliefs claimed by him in this suit.

The Defendant per Naa Netso Oku tendered in evidence the following documents in support of its case:

a. Exhibit 1 – a letter from Assene Household Enamelware Ltd; and

b. Exhibit 2 – a letter from MDPI.

The Plaintiff filed application for directions on 30th July, 2009 but the Defendant filed no additional issues so all the issues raised in the said application for directions were set down for trial on 8th October, 2009. It is, however, observed that the issues set down referred to the then 1st and 2nd Defendants who have been struck out as parties to the suit. In view of that the issues set down by the Court have been rendered irrelevant. They are, therefore, hereby set aside. The records show that on 17th June, 2010 the Plaintiff filed another application for directions with reference to the Defendant herein but that application was never taken by this Court. So no issues were set down for trial. The Court will, however, consider the following issues which arise out of the pleadings for determination. These are:

a. Whether or not the withdrawal of Plaintiff’s appointment by the Defendant was wrongful; and

b. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs in his writ of summons.

From the evidence before the Court the Plaintiff claims that the withdrawal of his appointment by the Defendant was wrongful and abuse of discretionary power in the sense that he was not given a hearing by the Defendant before withdrawing the offer of employment without notice at the time when he had accepted the offer of employment.

The Defendant on the other hand claims that the withdrawal of the offer of employment to the Plaintiff was lawful in the sense that the Plaintiff lied on his work experiences in his curriculum vitae as a result of which he was offered the employment. So the offer of the appointment to the Plaintiff was based on fraudulent representations. In view of that the withdrawal of his appointment without notice to him was lawful. The Plaintiff is, therefore, not entitled to his claims.

From the evidence before the Court the Plaintiff’s offer of employment was withdrawn by the Defendant on three main grounds. The first one being that he allegedly did not disclose in his curriculum vitae that he worked with the Management Development and Productivity Institute (MDPI) between the period 2003 and 2004. Secondly, he allegedly misrepresented on his curriculum vitae his position in Assene Household and Enamelware Ltd (AHEL) by stating that he was the HR and Administrative Manager from the year 2000 to present. Lastly, he allegedly misrepresented on his curriculum vitae his position in the then Bank for Housing and Construction (BHC) by stating that he was the Personnel and Administrative Manager from the year 1991 to 1998.

The Court, therefore, has to find out whether or not the misrepresentations complained of by the Defendant were true. If it is found out that they were true then the misrepresentations amount to fraud, therefore, making the offer of employment a nullity and as a result the withdrawal of the appointment being lawful. If on the other hand it is found out that those alleged misrepresentations were not true then there was no fraudulent representation, therefore, making the withdrawal of the offer of appointment to Plaintiff by the Defendant, wrongful.

On the issue of non disclosure of Plaintiff’s employment at MDPI, the Defendant claims that for not disclosing to the Defendant on his curriculum vitae that the Plaintiff worked at that institute between 2003 and 2004 and that his appointment was terminated by the institute implies that he was concealing that vital information from the Defendant which to the Defendant was fraudulent. Exhibit 2 clearly shows that the Plaintiff was employed by the MDPI as a Human Resource Manager Grade 1 with effect from May 5th, 2003 to April 13th, 2004 when his appointment was terminated. It is also true that this information was not provided by the Plaintiff on his curriculum vitae. It is, however, my belief that the fact that the information was not provided does not mean that the Plaintiff had the intention to use fraudulent means to secure the employment. Curriculum vitae, refers to a brief account of somebody’s previous career usually submitted with an application for a job. It, therefore, follows that the applicant will indicate relevant facts which will enhance his application. In the current case it is observed that the Defendant is a public institution and MDPI is also a public institution. Meanwhile, Exhibit A provides that the applicant should have the following qualification:

“A holder of a University degree with minimum of 10 years experience in administration, three years of which should have been in a senior management position within the Public Service. Must be computer literate.”

So from the advert since MDPI is a public institution it is in the interest of the Plaintiff to disclose that experience on his Curriculum vitae since that is likely to enhance his chances of being offered the job. If, however, for reasons best known to him he decides not to disclose that experience it is his own problem and it could not be used against him. More so Exhibit H, the letter withdrawing the offer of appointment to the Plaintiff did not give the non disclosure of Plaintiff’s employment with MDPI as one of the reasons for withdrawing the offer of employment to Plaintiff.

It is, therefore, my opinion that the fact that the Plaintiff did not disclose in his curriculum vitae that he worked with MDPI between 2003 and 2004 is not a good ground to justify the withdrawal of Plaintiff’s appointment. That had no effect on the withdrawal so it is an afterthought for the Defendant to consider that as one of the reasons to justify the withdrawal. The Court cannot, therefore, base on that reason to say that the Defendant was right in withdrawing the offer of employment to the Plaintiff.

On the issue of the Plaintiff’s misrepresentations on his curriculum vitae and in the interview his positions at Assene Household and Enamelware Limited and the erstwhile Bank for Housing and Construction, Exhibit C, Plaintiff’s curriculum vitae states that from 2000 to present Plaintiff was the Human Resource and Administrative Manager of Assene Household Enamelware Limited. It goes on to state that between 1991 and 1998 he was the Personnel and Administrative Manager of the erstwhile Bank for Housing and Construction.

According to the Defendant based on this information among others the Plaintiff was offered employment as the Secretary to the Board and Head of Administration of Council for Law Reporting. However, after they had offered him the job, they made enquiries and found out that the contents of Plaintiff’s curriculum vitae had been misrepresented so when the Plaintiff submitted his acceptance letter on 14th April 2008 he was asked to submit further clarification on areas of his CV they did not understand before the next council meeting which was going to be held before the date on which the Plaintiff was supposed to assume duty but the Plaintiff did not submit the relevant information. The Defendant claims that it had information that the Plaintiff was employed by the Assene Household Enamelware Limited as a Personnel Manager from September 1995 to April 1996. It supported this assertion with Exhibit 1, a letter from Assene Household Enamelware Limited. It was, therefore, not true that he was the Human Resource and Administrative Manager of the company from 2000 to present as stated on the curriculum vitae.

The Defendant also claims that the Plaintiff was not the Personnel and Administrative Manager of the erstwhile Bank for Housing and construction during the period he stated in his curriculum vitae that he was. The Defendant claims that because the bank has been liquidated it did not get confirmation of the said misrepresentation.

The Plaintiff did not deny the misrepresentations on his curriculum vitae which the Defendant complained of. He rather said that the issue of the misrepresentations came up during the interview and he had the opportunity to explain to the panel why he had compressed his curriculum vitae. He claims his explanation was accepted by the interview panel as a result of which he was offered the job. The Defendant, however, denied that the issue came up during cross examination of the Plaintiff. I will want to refer to that aspect of the cross examination which is found on page 12 to page 17 of the record of proceedings of 18th February 2011 in this judgment:

“Q. Mr. Darkwa you know very well that the Defendant was looking for somebody who had ten years experience in Human Resource Management and Administration?

A. Yes Human Resource Management and Administration.

Q. And you told the Defendant that you had worked with the Bank for Housing and Construction as an Administrative Manager from 1991 to 1998?

A. That is not correct my lord.

Q. Take a look at Exhibit C the column under Bank for Housing and Construction, personnel administrative manager, how many years did you indicate that you were the personnel and administrative manager under Bank For Housing and Construction, look at Exhibit C and tell the Court?

A. My lord, I have indicated that I worked from 1991 to 1998.

Q. As what, what was your title there?

A. My lord, from 1991 to 1998 as personnel administrative manager so I explained that initially I was appointed as a personnel officer and I rose through the ranks.

Q. Mr. Darkwa, on Exhibit C you have indicated you worked as personnel manager bank for housing and construction for 1991 to 1998 that is correct?

A. Yes, they asked me and I said initially I was employed as personnel officer and I rose through the ranks to that position. So I was not initially appointed as personnel administrative manager because at that time I had graduated from the University and I couldn’t have worked at that senior level position. I was appointed as personnel officer and I rose through the ranks so that is what I explained to the interview panel.

Q. So Exhibit C as it is that you told the Court that information is false?

A. That information is not false because I did explain to the interview panel why I compressed my CV.

Q. I am suggesting to you that you didn’t explain any such thing to the interview panel?

A. I did explain otherwise they would not have offered me the appointment.

Q. And in fact it was on the basis of these misleading false information that the purported offer was made to you by the Defendant?

A. The offer was made to me after I had submitted my appointment letters to the editor through the Administrative Secretary because they called me and said the explanation I gave I should substantiate them in my appointment letter. So I did indicate that initially I was appointed as personnel officer and I rose through the ranks.

Q. Mr. Darkwa, you were not called later to explain anything.

A. During the interview I explained because they asked me why I was appointed Personnel Administrative Manager in 1990 and I said no.

Q. In fact what happened was that the Defendant after the interview began background checks on you.

A. I don’t know.

Q. And the Defendant discovered that you lied in respect of this point that you were the human and personnel administrative manager from 1991 to 1998 at the Bank for Housing and Construction, you lied?

A. It is not true.

.......................

Q. Mr. Darkwa, you also said from year 2000 to present you have been Human Resource and Administrative Manager of Assene Household and Enamelware Ltd. that is what you’ve told the Defendant in Exhibit C?

A. Look at paragraph 4 of my statement of claim what I told the interview panel when they asked me to explain why I was appointed the Administrative Manager and I said no, initially I was appointed as personnel manager and later with restructuring and re-designation of job.

Q. I am suggesting to you that you did not give any explanation about that, you told the interview panel that the information you had on exhibit C is correct?

A. I did explain to the panel whether on that October 2000 I was appointed Human Resource Manager and Administrative Manager and I said no, my job position was re-designated as Human Resource and Administrative Manager because my appointment letter indicated Personnel Manager so they wanted to find out why my appointment letter indicated personnel manager and what my CV indicated I was a Human Resource and Administrative Manager and I explained to them how it came about.

Q. Mr. Darkwa, at the interview you were asked whether the information you provided on Exhibit C was correct not so, you were asked that question?

A. Yes, and I said they even suggested that the information I was providing indicated that the CV was compressed. I have made this clear on several occasions that my CV is just one page which was submitted to them and they even do not understand why I should submit a CV of one page so they even said why I compressed my CV because I would have indicated I was appointed to this position, the date I was appointed to this position then in my statement of claim I explained.

Q. You see you knew very well that you were not Human Resource and Administrative Manager at Assene Household Enamelware Ltd from year 2000 to the time of interview. You know very well?

A. It is not correct. What you are saying you are just repeating yourself. I even indicated to you that initially I was appointed the Personnel Manager and was re-designated as Human Resource and Administrative Manager so I do not see why you are repeating yourself.

Q. I am suggesting to you that after the interview the Defendant made a check on your background at Assene Household Enamelware Ltd.?

A. I did not do the check for them so you have to tell me.

Q. The Defendant discovered that it is not true that you were the Human Resource and Administrative Manager at Assene Household Enamelware Ltd from year 2000 to the date of the interview?

A. That is why I am saying that I was not a Personnel Manager I was...

Q. So you see Mr. Darkwa the result from the Background checks came in after the Defendant had sent you an offer letter based on Exhibit C?

A. That is not true.”

From the cross examination as shown above the Defendant insists that after it had offered the job to the Plaintiff it conducted background checks on the Plaintiff and got to know that the Plaintiff misrepresented his positions in the two companies on his CV and through that he succeeded in being considered for the job. Also it is not true that he explained the misrepresentations to the interview panel and it was accepted.

Since the Plaintiff claims he explained the misrepresentation to the panel at the interview and they accepted it he should have called for the proceedings at the interview to be tendered in evidence on his behalf for the Court to find out whether or not the issue came up and that he explained himself and his explanation was accepted by the panel.

Also the Plaintiff claims that the Assene Household Enamelware Limited was made up of a group of companies so he did not work in a specific one particular organization in the group of companies. The Plaintiff, however, never tendered in evidence any document to prove that truly he was the HR and Administrative manager for the period he indicated on his CV. If he was working in those organizations in the positions and the periods he indicated he could have tendered in evidence his letters of appointments to prove that. This would have helped the Court to know when he was appointed and the positions to which he was appointed.

As at now there is no corroborative evidence before the Court that at the interview the issue came up and the Plaintiff explained issues to the panel as a result of which they accepted the contents of his curriculum vitae. Also there is no such corroborative evidence that he worked in those organizations in the positions and the period stated on his CV.

In the celebrated case of Majolagbe v. larbi [1959] GLR 150, it was held that when a party makes an averment in his pleading which is capable of proof in a positive way and the averment is denied, the averment cannot be sufficiently proved by just mounting the witness-box and reciting the averment on oath without adducing some corroborative evidence. See also the case of Zabrama v. Segbedzi [1991] 2 GLR 221.

As has already been stated elsewhere in the current case, the Plaintiff claims that at the interview the issue of the misrepresentation of his positions in the Bank for Housing and Construction and Assene Household Enamelware Ltd on his CV came up and he had the opportunity to explain himself to the panel which they accepted and went on to offer him the job. The Defendant has, however, denied that the issue came up and the Plaintiff explained himself which was accepted. Since the Defendant has denied that averment the onus is on the Plaintiff to lead a corroborative evidence to prove that averment which he has failed to do. If truly the issue came up at the interview and the Plaintiff had the opportunity to explain himself and it was accepted by the panel he could have proved that averment by calling for the proceedings at the interview to be tendered in evidence on his behalf for the Court to examine it. For not doing that the Court finds it difficult to accept his evidence on that averment. The Court cannot, therefore, accept the evidence of the Plaintiff that the issue came up at the interview and he explained himself which was accepted by the panel.

Also the Plaintiff could not lead corroborative evidence to prove that he was actually the HR and Administrative Manager at Assene Household Enamelware Limited and Personnel and Administrative Manager at the Bank for Housing and Construction during the periods stated on his CV. Meanwhile, Exhibit 1, tendered in evidence by the Defendant shows that the Plaintiff worked at Assene Household Enamelware Limited as the Personnel Manager between September 1995 and April 1996. It, therefore, implies that he was not even in the employment of the company between 2000 and present as stated on his curriculum vitae. It is, therefore, clear that the Plaintiff misrepresented on his CV his positions in the two companies. Meanwhile, the offer of his employment by the Defendant was based on Exhibit C which has been found to be misrepresented.

The Court takes notice of the fact that the Plaintiff never denied the misrepresentations of his positions in the Assene Household Enamelware Ltd and the Bank for Housing and Construction on the CV. His problem is that the Defendant was wrong in withdrawing the offer of employment without giving him a hearing and notice because he had explained himself at the interview when the issue allegedly came up.

There is no doubt that Plaintiff’s appointment as Secretary and Head of Administration of Defendant organization was based on the fact that between the year 2000 and present he was the Human Resource and Administrative Manager of Assene Household Enamelware Limited and also that between 1991 and 1998 he was the Personnel and Administrative Manager of the Bank for Housing and Construction among others as stated on his curriculum vitae. Considering the fact that from Exhibit A the Defendant was looking for a candidate with a university degree with a minimum of 10 years experience in administration, three years of which should have been in a senior management position within the Public Service then the Plaintiff with seven years experience as Personnel and Administrative Manager of the Bank for Housing and Construction and about eight years experience as Human Resource and Administrative Manager of Assene Household Enamelware Limited was more than qualified for that position hence, the offer of the employment to him by the Defendant.

At the time the Plaintiff stated that he was the Human Resource and Administrative Manager at Assene Household Enamelware Limited between 2000 and present and Personnel and Administrative Manager of Bank for Housing and Construction between 1991 and 1998, he knew it was false. It is not true that he just stated that he worked at those places and that he rose through the ranks. He was very specific on his positions in those organizations which have been found to be false. The said representations were, therefore, fraudulent.

The Plaintiff claims that since he accepted the offer there had been a contract so the Defendant could not unilaterally withdraw the contract without giving him notice. He claims he should have been given a hearing and notice. More so he reported for work on 1st May so he had become an employee. His appointment could therefore not be terminated without just cause. In the first place it is public knowledge that every 1st May is a public holiday so public servants do not go to work on that day. This implies that the fact that Exhibit E states that he has been offered the employment to take effect from 1st May does not mean he should by all means report for duty on that day. As an experience public servant as shown from his CV he cannot say that he is not aware that public servants do not go to work on 1st May. Even Exhibit E goes on to state that he had been offered the employment with effect from 1st May or the date he assume duty. This implies that it was not mandatory for him to report for duty on the 1st May. Since 1st May was a public holiday he was expected to assume duty on 2nd May and not on 1st May. So if he reported for duty on that day then it is his own problem and that cannot be used against the Defendant.

Secondly, since the Defendant had found out that the Plaintiff fraudulently represented his positions in Assene Household Enamelware Limited and Bank for Housing and Construction on his CV there was no need allowing him to assume duty and go on to give him notice. This is because the principle is that fraud vitiates everything and renders void everything in law when found. So the said contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is void and unenforceable due to the fraud committed by the Plaintiff on his CV. See the case of Apeah and Another v. Asamoah [2003-2004] SCGLR 226 in which it was held in holding 4 that fraud would vitiate everything and that where there was clear evidence of fraud on the face of the record, the Court could not ignore it. So in the current case since it has been established that the Plaintiff fraudulently represented his positions in Assene Household Enamelware Limited and Bank for Housing and Construction on his CV the contract between him and the Defendant is null and void and cannot be enforced.

See also the case of Mensah and Others v. Ahenfie Cloth Sellers Association [2010] SCGLR 680 in which it was held that an illegal contract is one which is a nullity and is of no effect whatsoever and is clearly unenforceable.

From the foregoing it is the opinion of this Court that since it has been established that the Plaintiff fraudulently represented on his curriculum vitae his positions at Assene Household and Enamelware Limited and the erstwhile Bank for Housing and Construction as a result of which he was offered employment as the Secretary of the Board and Head of Administration in Defendant Organization, the offer of employment was a nullity so the Defendant was right in withdrawing it notwithstanding the fact that the fact that the Plaintiff had then accepted the offer. It must be noted that in employment relationship the acceptance of the offer alone does not mean that the contract of employment has taken place. Rather the contract takes place on the day the employee assumes duty. So in the current case the fact that the Plaintiff had accepted the offer and he allegedly reported for work on 1st May which was a public holiday does not mean the contract had taken place. It should have taken place on 2nd May if he had assumed duty on that day. So as at that day no contract had taken place between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The withdrawal of the offer of the employment to the Plaintiff by the Defendant was, therefore, not wrongful and I so hold.

Since it has been established that the withdrawal of the offer of employment to the Plaintiff by the Defendant was not wrongful it follows that the Plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs endorsed on his writ of summons and I so hold.

In conclusion the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed and judgment entered for the Defendant against the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s costs are assessed as GH¢3,000.00.

COUNSEL

PLAINTIFF APPEARS IN PERSON

MR. ALBERT ADAARE FOR THE DEFENDANT.