Court of Appeal quashes trial court’s judgment against KNUST Professor

The Court of Appeal in Kumasi has, by a unanimous 3-0 decision, upheld an appeal by Professor Rexford Assasie Oppong to overturn a Kumasi High Court judgment of January 15, 2025 against him.

The Appeal Court, comprising Justices Patrick Kwamina Baiden (Presiding), Richard Mac Kogyapwah and John Bobsco Nabarese, thus set aside the judgment of the trial court, presided over by His Lordship Justice Frederick Tettey, which dismissed the application of the plaintiff.

The position of the Court of Appeal followed an application for a judicial review, in the nature of Certiorari, pursuant to Zoster 55 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 (CI.47).

Prof. Assasie Oppong had filed a notice on motion at the trial court, challenging the report of a fact-finding Committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNIST) in Kumasi.

The applicant had sought an order to be directed at the respondent Registrar to withdraw the August 13, 2024 findings and issue a circular to the effect that the applicant is not guilty of the charges and accusations levelled against him.

The action by Professor Rexford Assasie Oppong, who is the Head of the Department of Architecture at KNUST, centred around allegations of improper disciplinary procedures and breaches of university regulations, and sought a range of legal remedies including an injunction against the implementation of a directive issued by the Vice-Chancellor, based on the recommendations of the committee in question.

The applicant stated that on March 23, 2023 he received a letter from the registrar of KNUST, informing him of a petition submitted by several senior members of his department.

The petition accused him of multiple infractions, including harassment and intimidation of staff, taking unilateral decisions without consulting the department board, violating the School of Graduate Studies’ regulations on postgraduate studies and disrupting mid-semester exams held on March 1, 2023.

He maintained that the allegations were baseless and that the process used to investigate them was procedurally flawed.

According to him, the fact-finding committee set up by the Vice-Chancellor and led by Professor Samuel I.K. Ampadu was not constituted in accordance with the university’s statutes, which require a disciplinary committee for such matters rather than a fact-finding committee.

Prof. Oppong further argued that the committee’s formation and procedures violated his constitutional right to a fair hearing as he was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the petitioners during the committee’s interactions.

He said despite providing oral and documentary evidence refuting the claims against him, the fact-finding committee proceeded with its investigations and submitted a report to the Vice Chancellor upon which the VC reportedly gave directives as communicated  to him by the Registrar of the respondent university on August 14, 2024.

As a result, Prof Assasie Oppong refused to comply with the directive, asserting that the Committee’s findings were biased and lacked credibility.

He described the report as flawed and claimed that it failed to meet professional standards, alleging that the Committee’s work was characterised by procedural impropriety.

In an affidavit in support of his statement of claims, Prof. Assasie Oppong saw the findings and recommendations of Prof Samuel I.K. Ampadu Fact-Finding Committee as bias and irregular, with complete disregard for laid down rules and available evidence on record and prayed for a judicial review of same.

He believed the respondent did not follow laid down procedures and rules under its statutes thus render the Committee and the resultant directives by the VC null and void.

He, therefore, sought an order of the trial court to invalidate the actions taken by the fact-finding committee and to prohibit the implementation of the Vice Chancellor’s directive.

In a statement of case in opposition to the claims filed by Nene Ahuma Korda Esq, Solicitor for the respondent University on October 21, 2024 KNUST argued that the Ampadu Fact-Finding Committee was established as a fact finding committee (and not a disciplinary Committee) to determine whether a prima facie case existed against the applicant.

It said the Vice Chancellor has the power under Statute 12 of the KNUST Statutes to set up a fact finding Committee.

The respondent said the Committee acted within its powers and followed the proper procedures in conducting its investigations and stressed that the recommendations were appropriate and in accordance with the regulations of the University.

It further contended that the applicant was not denied a fair hearing and that there was no breach of natural justice and submitted that the applicant’s application was misconceived and should be dismissed because it lacked merit.

In overturning the decision of the trial court and thus allowing the appeal of the appellant, the Court of Appeal in its judgment of February 12, 2026 noted that as a fact-finding committee, it was expected to be fair and give the appellant proper hearing to air his views before submitting its report to the appointing authority.

The Court of Appeal faulted the Vice-Chancellor for issuing a directive to the appellant to render an apology against his interest.

It described the failure to adopt a proper procedure within the statutes of the respondent university to properly deal with the matter in observing the rules of natural justice as fatal.

The Court, however, proposed that the fact-finding committee could investigate a matter and make recommendations based on its mandate while the appointing authority acts on the recommendations following due process stressing that failure to follow due process could result in the invalidation of its decision.

The Court also noted that the Vice-Chancellor gave the directives in her capacity as the Chief Disciplinary Officer having accepted the recommendations of the committee upon which she issued the directives as an enforcement of the recommendations.

“This way of taking disciplinary action ought not to be entertained” the Court emphasised explaining that in seeking to enforce the recommendations, the Vice-Chancellor ought to have adopted a procedure akin to that of a disciplinary proceedings describing the lapse on the part of the Vice-Chancellor as a fatal omission.

The Court, however, advised the appellant to make efforts to exhaust internal grievance procedure to avert a situation by which the seemingly small matter could germinate a bigger dispute that would disturb the academic peace of the respondent University.

The respondent was represented by Counsel Nene Ahuma Korda, (Assistant Registrar) for Mr. Isaac Berko (Deputy Registrar) while Derrick Adu-Gyamfi, Esq., with Afua Sakyiwaa Assasie Oppong Esq. stood for Professor Rexford Assasie Oppong, the applicant.

 

 

For more news, join The Chronicle Newspaper channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbBSs55E50UqNPvSOm2z

The post Court of Appeal quashes trial court’s judgment against KNUST Professor appeared first on The Ghanaian Chronicle.

Read Full Story