Three sue GWCL for wrongful dismissal

THREE officials of the Ghana Water Company Limited (GWCL) have jointly sued the company and its Managing Director, Mr Jonathan Ahele Nunoo, at an Accra High Court for wrongful dismissal.

The plaintiffs, Messrs Michael Kofi Quashie, Henry Forson, both Assistant Stores Officers and Atta Poku, Senior Audit Assistant, were among 11 other officials of the company who were summarily dismissed after they were implicated by the committee set up by the Ministry of Works and Housing to investigate allegations of financial malfeasance levelled against them.

The plaintiffs, whose writs were filed by their solicitor, Mr Geofrey Osei Aggrey, an Accra Legal practitioner, are demanding reinstatement, general damages, legal damages and costs at the rate of ?300,000 at each day's hearing of the case in court.

In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs, among other things, said on February 21, 2003, they were served with summary dismissal letters for falsifying store documents which formed the basis for the purchase of Khaki and suiting materials in the year 2000.

They said the defendants, in their letters of dismissal, alleged that they (plaintiffs) conspired to secure approval of Head Office to purchase Khaki materials on Ashanti Region's requisition in October 2002.

The plaintiffs denied all the allegations set out in the dismissal letters.

They said according to the company's policies and procedures, they made requests for items when the need arose and the request made for replenishment in August 2002 was not for the Ashanti Region office only, but for all the regions and the Head Office.

The plaintiffs also said in their claim that the request made in August, 2002 were supplied in September and October, 2002 adding that, ?the items supplied were blue black American Khaki, white America Khaki and blue black suiting material.

They said the items supplied in September and October 2000 can be found on the various tally cards and that all these items were requested for, to be used in the year 2001. They also claimed that the items were specified on the store requisition as "August next year 2002".

The plaintiffs said the requisition is always kept at the Central Stores and the photocopy of the said requisition sent to the Head Office as the company's policy and procedure demands.

This they said were also photocopied for the Ministerial Committee which investigated the affairs of the company. They claimed that the photocopy that was presented to the committee was doctored and this led to the allegation that the plaintiffs had falsified store documents.

The plaintiffs said it is strange that the surpluses which were found on the stores verification sheets of December 31, 2000 were not reported in the first quarter of 2001 but was kept till the last quarter of the year 2001" and indicated that ?the surpluses found on the verification sheets of 31st December 2000 were released on 14th May, 2002, which is irregular?.

They argued that the Auditors' report was released 17 months after the stock taking and noted that the auditors report should have been released in the first quarter after the stock taking and was released six months after the committee had finished its work.

The plaintiffs claimed that if the report had been made available in the first quarter of 2001, the ministerial committee which finished its work in November 2001 would have studied it and would not have come to the conclusion that they (plaintiffs) have falsified the store documents.

The plaintiffs said the defendants action is wrongful and has brought their ?long acquired reputation into disrepute and has also caused them to appear dishonest in the eyes of the public and has brought them into public reducible?.