This blog is managed by the content creator and not GhanaWeb, its affiliates, or employees. Advertising on this blog requires a minimum of GH₵50 a week. Contact the blog owner with any queries.
Accra, Ghana – On November 25, 2024, the Court of Appeal convened for a
critical hearing in the ongoing legal case between Engineer Djanie Kotey and
Emirates Airlines. The hearing, registered under Suit No. H1/271/ 2024, was
presided over by a distinguished panel of Justices: Jennifer Amanda Dodoo (Mrs.),
Kweku Tawiah Ackaa-Abofo, and Gifty Agyei Addo.
Both parties relied on their written submissions, with Engineer Djanie Kotey
represented by Counsel David Bentil, and Emirates Airlines represented by Sales
Manager Cecil Nana Tenkorang and Counsel Vida Akanlise.
FIRST HEARING OF THE APPEAL:
The Court has concluded the hearing and has announced that the case is now
ready for judgment.
The matter has been adjourned, with the final ruling scheduled for February 13,
2025.
This decision has garnered significant attention, as the case holds potential
implications for future legal precedents, particularly in matters of airline
accountability and human rights protections. Stakeholders in the aviation and
legal sectors are closely monitoring the outcome.
The case was originally heard before Justice Nicholas M. C. Abodakpi in the High
Court of Justice, Human Rights Division, Court 2, Accra, on Friday, March 22, 2024.
The High Court ruled in favor of Emirates Airline, dismissing Engineer Djanie
Kotey’s claims. However, Engineer Djanie Kotey is now appealing that decision in
the Court of Appeal, where his legal team argued that Emirates not only
mistreated him during his travels but also presented falsified documents that
misled the court.
Case Overview
Engineer Djanie Kotey, a prominent Ghanaian businessman, is appealing a ruling
from the High Court, which was issued on March 22, 2024. The case revolves
around a serious allegation of human rights violations that occurred during
Engineer Djanie Kotey’s travels with Emirates Airline in October 2018. Kotey
claims that Emirates subjected him to inhumane treatment in Bangkok,
(Thailand), and that the airline presented falsified documents during the trial.
Key Allegations:
Detention and Harsh Conditions: After being denied entry to Macau, Engineer
Djanie Kotey was sent back to Bangkok, where Emirates representatives allegedly
detained him in a cold and uncomfortable room at Suvarnabhumi Airport,
Bangkok, (Thailand) for several days. Despite having a valid return ticket, he was forced to sleep on the bare floor and was denied medical attention, causing his
health to deteriorate.
Falsification of Documents: Engineer Djanie Kotey’s legal team claims that
Emirates submitted fraudulent documents during the original trial, which
contributed to the unjust dismissal of his case. The discrepancies include a wrong
ticket number and incorrect passenger details that cast doubt on the authenticity
of the documents Emirates presented to the court.
Legal Claims:
Violation of Human Rights: Engineer Djanie Kotey argues that his treatment by
Emirates violated his rights, particularly his right to humane treatment and his
right to travel on a valid ticket.
Compensation for Damages: Engineer Djanie Kotey seeks aggravated damages for
the physical and emotional suffering he endured, as well as special damages for
medical expenses, herbal treatments, and lost income resulting from his
prolonged illness and recovery.
Background Details
The incident began when Engineer Djanie Kotey, traveling from Accra to Dubai,
Bangkok, (Thailand) and ultimately Macau, was denied entry into Macau on
October 15, 2018 due to a visa issue. After being ordered to return to Bangkok
(Thailand), Engineer Djanie Kotey was detained by Emirates representatives at
Bangkok Airport, (Thailand) despite holding a valid return ticket for travel from
Bangkok to Accra via Dubai.
Despite the validity of his return ticket, Emirates refused to allow him to board his
flight back to Ghana and detained him in a cold, uncomfortable room without
adequate facilities, such as chairs or beds. Engineer Djanie Kotey’s attempts to
resolve the situation were thwarted as he was informed by a representative from
Air Macau, a partner airline of Emirates that arrangements were being made to
send him back to Accra via Kenya Airways. However, Engineer Djanie Kotey was
told he would have to pay an additional USD 600 for a new ticket.
Engineer Djanie Kotey arranged with Emirates travel agent, Staller Travels, to
change his return flight date to October 16, 2018. He paid USD 99 to a
representative of Emirates in Bangkok, (Thailand) who issued a new return ticket
for him. However, when Engineer Djanie Kotey attempted to use the new ticket at
the airport, immigration and security officers refused to acknowledge it and
insisted he pay for the Kenya Airways ticket, threatening him with indefinite
detention.
Discrepancies in Documents Presented by Emirates
A central issue in the appeal is the falsification of documents presented by
Emirates during the initial trial. Engineer Djanie Kotey’s legal team identifies
significant discrepancies in the documents submitted by the airline:
Ticket Number: Emirates submitted an E-ticket as Exhibit “1” during the trial.
However, the ticket number on this document contained 16 digits, whereas
Engineer Djanie Kotey’s actual ticket number had 15 digits, which follows the
standard Emirates format with the prefix “EK”.
Incorrect Passenger Name: The ticket submitted by Emirates listed a different
passenger name: “Angela Martha Prah”, not Engineer Djanie Kotey. This raises
serious concerns about the authenticity of the document.
Ticket Price Discrepancy: The price listed for the flight in Exhibit “1” was
GH₵ 7,813.20, whereas Engineer Djanie Kotey paid GH₵ 8,550.00 for his ticket,
highlighting another significant discrepancy between the document presented by
Emirates and the actual ticket purchase.
Receipt Falsification: Exhibit “2” purportedly showed the amount Engineer Djanie
Kotey paid for the ticket change. However, Engineer Djanie Kotey’s receipt
(Exhibit “N”) clearly shows he paid USD 99 for the change, while Exhibit “2” falsely
claimed he paid USD 958. Despite the fact that Mary Cathrine Wesley, Emirates’
Ghana Country Manager, acknowledged that Engineer Djanie Kotey paid the
correct amount of USD 99, Exhibit “2” still falsely reported a higher sum, further
undermining the credibility of Emirates’ documents.
These discrepancies are central to Engineer Djanie Kotey’s appeal, as they suggest
that Emirates misled the court with falsified evidence, which contributed to the
dismissal of his case.
Allegations of Mistreatment and Violation of Rights
Engineer Djanie Kotey’s legal claims are based on the inhumane conditions he
endured during his detention in Bangkok, as well as the unwarranted refusal by
Emirates to honor his valid return ticket. He contends that Emirates’ refusal to
allow him to board the flight back to Accra, combined with the harsh detention
conditions, violated his human rights. His health deteriorated significantly as a
result of the detention, leading to pneumonia, abscesses, and sleep disturbances
that required both medical and herbal treatments upon his return to Ghana.
The Appeal and Its Implications
The Court of Appeal will examine the authenticity of the documents presented by
Emirates, focusing on whether the airline misled the court and whether Engineer
Djanie Kotey’s human rights were violated by their actions.
The appeal is
expected to have broader implications for airline accountability, passenger rights,
and corporate responsibility in cases of human rights violations.
The case is likely to draw significant interest from human rights advocates,
consumer protection groups, and the aviation industry. The outcome could have
lasting consequences on how airlines handle passenger complaints and disputes,
as well as on the role of falsified evidence in legal proceedings.
Conclusion
The final judgment scheduled for 13th February 2025 will be closely watched by
human rights advocates, the aviation industry, and consumer protection groups,
as it could have lasting effects on how airlines are held accountable for their
actions and the integrity of documents presented in court.
