AFETORGBOR v. GHANA AIRWAYS CORPORATION

JUDGMENT OF ESSIEM J.A.

The appellant (hereinafter called the plaintiff) was employed by the defendant-corporation on 11 October 1972. He remained in their employment until he was summarily dismissed by a letter, exhibit K, dated 22 February 1985. The letter of dismissal amply explains why he was summarily dismissed. I reproduce the relevant part of the letter:

"Summary Dismissal

We refer to your involvement in the theft of one carton whisky which led to the appointment of a committee of inquiry to investigate the case further. The committee found your explanation for taking the whisky very unsatisfactory.

It has therefore been decided by the appointing authority to dismiss you summarily from the employment of the corporation with effect from 1 December 1981."

The plaintiff thereafter instituted the action herein against the defendants, his former employers, claiming the following reliefs:

"1. A declaration that his summary dismissal from the employment of the defendant-corporation is wrongful, unlawful, null and void as having been effected in violation and utter disregard of the agreed terms and conditions of his Employment.

2. An order directing his reinstatement in his employment or post with the defendant -corporation.

3. An order ordering restoration to him of his benefits, entitlement and other emoluments wrongfully withheld or forfeited during the period of his suspension and wrongful dismissal."

The following issues were set down for determination by the court below:

"(a) Whether or not the plaintiff's dismissal from his employment was effected in accordance with the relevant law, rules, regulations or agreement governing it.

[p.166]

(b) Whether or not the said dismissal is null and void.

(c) Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs he claims or at all.

(d) Any other issues arising on the pleadings."

The facts are simple. A carton of whisky which had been brought to the Kotoka International Airport by a DC 9 aircraft got missing. All persons who had anything to do with the off-loading of that particular flight were questioned about it and they all denied any knowledge of the whereabouts of the whisky. A search was conducted and the carton of whisky was found in the Ethiopian Airlines equipment room. The plaintiff was the person in charge of the place and had the key to that room. There is evidence that the plaintiff was around during the off-loading of the plane although he was not supposed to be there. He does not de