ABUBAKARI MOHAMMED VS BXC COMPANY (GHANA) LTD
October 14, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS)
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
October 14, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Her Ladyship Justice Ananda J. Aikins (Mrs), sitting in the Ghana High Court, adjudicated a wrongful termination suit involving an electrician employed by the defendant employer since 2012. The employee, confirmed in October 2012, was summarily dismissed on 22 June 2018 for allegedly stealing a company meter cover, with the termination letter claiming a confession to a line manager. The defendant failed to file a witness statement, attend pre-trial, or appear to cross-examine, leading the court to strike out the defence under Order 7A rule 3(b) of C.I. 87. On the undisputed record, the court held that under the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651) section 15(e)(iii) misconduct must be proven after proper investigation, which was absent. Guided by the Supreme Court in Affran v. SG-SSB on adherence to contractual termination terms, the court declared the dismissal wrongful, denied reinstatement as purposeless, and awarded GHC 25,000 compensation plus GHC 5,000 costs.
(1) INTRODUCTION The plaintiff sued the defendant for the following reliefs: -(a) Declaration that the termination of plaintiff’s employment with defendant is wrongful.
b) An order for reinstatement of plaintiff to his former post in the employment of the defendant or in the alternative payment of compensation for wrongful termination.
c) An order that all outstanding salaries and allowances of plaintiff if any be paid from 22nd June 2018 up to the date of judgment.
He was later confirmed as a permanent worker in October of the same year after the completion of his probation.
The plaintiff’s appointment was however terminated on the 22nd June 2018 on the allegation that he had stolen a meter cover belonging to the defendant.
According to the plaintiff despite his denial of the theft the defendant terminated his employment without any proof of the said allegation.
The plaintiff filed his witness statement on the 26th of February 2020 but the defendant failed to file any witness statement and it also failed to appear for pre-trial conference despite the fact that hearing notices were served on defendant’s counsel.
The court on the 3rd of June 2022 exercised its discretion under order 7A rule 3(b) of C. I 87 (the High Court Civil Procedure Amendment) Rules, 2014 and struck out the statement of defence filed on 2nd July 2019 because it was of the view that the defendant was not interested in the prosecution of its defence.
The court thereafter allowed the plaintiff to lead evidence in support of his claim.
The evidence of the plaintiff was that he was appointed by the defendant as an electrician in the year 2012 and that his appointment was confirmed on the 4th of October 2012 after the completion of his probationary period.
On the 22nd of June 2018, the defendant terminated his appointment because the plaintiff was accused of stealing a meter cover.