…Former Employee Of First Bank Ghana Vindicated
…Bank Ordered To Pay Four Years’ Salaries, GH¢80,000 Costs
The High Court, Industrial and Labour Division II in Accra, has ordered First Bank Ghana Limited (FBNGhana) to reinstate a former employee, Martha Okpoti, whose summary dismissal in November 2022 was declared unlawful, unconstitutional and procedurally flawed.
The court, presided over by Justice Priscilla Dikro Ofori, also directed the bank to pay Ms Okpoti all salaries, allowances and benefits due to her from November 11, 2022, the date of her dismissal, until the date of her reinstatement.
The court further ordered the bank to pay the full amount due to her from her Provident Fund, together with interest at the prevailing commercial bank rate, and awarded GH¢80,000 in costs against the bank.
The judgment was delivered on Friday, June 5, 2026, in Suit No. IL/0014/2023.
Dispute over introductory letter
Ms Okpoti, who joined the bank in 2009 as an Assistant Banking Officer and rose to the position of Senior Banking Officer, was dismissed after the bank accused her of breaching official procedure in obtaining an introductory letter to support her application for a Canadian visa.
The letter had been issued by the Manager of the bank’s Techiman Branch.
The bank’s case was that introductory letters were issued through its Human Resources Department and that the branch manager had no authority to issue such a document.
The bank also raised concerns over Ms Okpoti’s use of a customer’s bank statement as part of the documents submitted in support of her visa application.
However, the court found that the bank failed to produce evidence of any specific rule or procedure that prohibited employees from requesting introductory letters from branch managers at the time Ms Okpoti made her request.
The court noted that the bank only sent a general email to staff on September 30, 2022, directing that all future requests for introductory letters should be channelled through the Head of the Human Capital Management Department.
According to the court, the directive suggested that there had been no clear and established procedure governing such requests before the directive was issued.
The court therefore held that Ms Okpoti had not breached any existing rule or procedure by obtaining the letter from the Techiman Branch.
Previous application did not prove mandatory procedure
The bank had argued that Ms Okpoti knew the correct procedure because she had previously applied for an introductory letter through the Human Resources Department in 2021.
The court accepted that she had previously used that channel but held that her previous conduct did not, by itself, establish the existence of a mandatory rule prohibiting applications through branch managers.
Justice Ofori held that the bank had failed to demonstrate that there was a clear rule, directive or procedure known to all employees which prohibited the issuance of introductory letters through branches.
The court consequently rejected the bank’s argument that Ms Okpoti was bound to use the same procedure simply because she had followed it in the past.
Customer’s bank statement
The court also considered the allegation that Ms Okpoti had used the bank statement of a customer, identified as Osei Jafaro, without authorisation.
The bank maintained that the use of the statement without the consent of the customer or the bank amounted to serious misconduct.
However, the court found that the bank had failed to call key witnesses who could have clarified the circumstances surrounding the use of the document.
The court specifically noted that neither Osei Jafaro nor the Techiman Branch Manager, identified in the proceedings as Christian, was called to testify.
According to the court, their absence made it difficult to determine whether the customer had consented to the use of the statement or whether the branch manager had authorised its use.
The court therefore held that the bank had not sufficiently established that Ms Okpoti used the customer’s bank statement without authorisation.
Court finds breach of fair hearing
A major issue in the case was the disciplinary process that preceded Ms Okpoti’s dismissal.
The court found that Ms Okpoti was first invited to the Internal Audit Department on September 28, 2022, where she was interviewed and subsequently issued with a query.
After she responded to the query, the bank issued her a written warning on October 14, 2022, accusing her of breaching official procedure in requesting an introductory letter for travel purposes.
However, approximately two weeks later, the bank invited her to appear before a Disciplinary Committee.
The invitation, sent on October 26, 2022, required her to appear before the Committee the following day.
The court found that this failed to comply with the mandatory two-day notice required under the bank’s Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The court further found that Ms Okpoti was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the person who testified against her, was not allowed to call witnesses, was not informed of her right to call witnesses and was not permitted to appear with a lawyer of her choice.
The court rejected the bank’s argument that the Disciplinary Committee was merely an administrative body and therefore did not have to observe procedures applicable to a court.
Justice Ofori held that an administrative disciplinary committee exercising quasi-judicial powers was required to observe the principles of natural justice and fair hearing.
The court emphasised that the right to a fair hearing includes the opportunity to present one’s case, call witnesses, challenge evidence against oneself and, where applicable, appear with legal representation.
It therefore concluded that the disciplinary process leading to Ms Okpoti’s dismissal did not comply with the principles of natural justice.
Disciplinary report also found invalid
The court further found that the report of the Disciplinary Committee was not signed by all members of the Committee.
Justice Ofori held that this was contrary to Article 16 of the bank’s Employee Handbook and rendered the report invalid.
The court consequently held that the bank could not lawfully rely on the flawed report to dismiss Ms Okpoti.
The disciplinary report was declared null and void and quashed.
All decisions taken by the bank based on the report, including the summary dismissal, were similarly declared unlawful and unconstitutional.
Court finds double punishment
The court also upheld Ms Okpoti’s argument that she had been punished twice for the same alleged conduct.
Justice Ofori found that the bank had already investigated the matter, issued Ms Okpoti with a query and subsequently punished her with a written warning on October 14, 2022.
The court held that the written warning constituted a disciplinary punishment under the bank’s Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Despite this, the bank later subjected her to a disciplinary hearing over the same facts and eventually dismissed her.
The court noted that no fresh evidence had emerged to justify reopening the matter.
It therefore held that the second disciplinary process and subsequent dismissal amounted to double punishment or double jeopardy.
The court said the action contravened Article 19(7) of the 1992 Constitution, which prohibits a person from being punished twice for the same offence.
Dismissal declared unlawful
In its final determination, the court held that Ms Okpoti had successfully proved that her dismissal breached the bank’s Collective Bargaining Agreement, its Employee Handbook and the principles of natural justice.
The court also found violations of the constitutional fair hearing requirements and the protection against double punishment.
The summary dismissal, dated November 11, 2022, was consequently quashed and set aside.
The court ordered First Bank Ghana Limited to reinstate Ms Okpoti within three months of the judgment and pay her all salaries, allowances and benefits due from the date of her dismissal until her reinstatement.
The court directed that the computation of the amount owed must be transparent and that Ms Okpoti must be involved in the process.
The bank was also ordered to pay the full amount due to her from her Provident Fund as at the date of her termination, with interest at the prevailing commercial bank rate until final payment.
In addition, the court awarded GH¢80,000 in costs against the bank.
Ms Okpoti was represented by Portia Addo, who held brief for Tassah Tapha Tassah, while Kwadwo Addeah-Safo represented First Bank Ghana Limited.
