ALFRED COCHRANE KPODO v. SWISS AFRICAN TRADING COMPANY, LTD.

The following judgment was delivered:-

YATES, J.

This is a case stated by His Worship A. J. Ainley, District Magistrate, Accra.

The learned Magistrate found the following facts:-

(1) That the plaintiff was employed by the defendants as a storekeeper at a wage of £5 per month and a commission of 1% on all cash sales;

(2) That the contract of employment was oral and that no agreement was expressed therein respecting its duration or nature by which the contract could be terminated;

(3) That the contract was one of service for employment of a servant to be wholly performed within the limits of the administration;

(4) That the employment was terminated by the employers on payment of £5 in lieu of one month's wages.

The plaintiff argued that he was entitled to notice expiring at the end of a year's service.

The Court held that section 8 of the Master and Servants Ordinance, Cap. 101,* applied, and entered judgment for the defendants.

The question for this Court is solely whether or not the above section applies in a contract of this nature. Section 8, Cap. 101, is as follows:-

"Every home contract of service (Home contract of service meaning a

contract of service for the employment of a servant to be wholly performed

within the limits of the administration) wherein no agreement is expressed

respecting its duration not being a contract to perform some specific work

without reference to time shall be deemed to be a contract at will and shall be

determinable by either party at the close of any day without notice."

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant company orally on 17th September, 1934, as a storekeeper at a salary of £5 a month and 1% commission on all sales and he continued in that employ until October 31st, 1934, when he received a written notice terminating his employment.

Now, in my view, the Master and Servant Ordinance, Cap. 101, is taken from the Employers and Workmen's Act, 1875, and the Factories and Workshops Acts in England, which apply to persons employed in any kind of manual labour (Halsbury, Vol. 14, p. 517), and such manual labour must be the workman's real and substantial work, and not merely incidental thereto-so a grocer's assistant has been held to be outside the scope of the Act of 1875 (Bound v. Lawrence, (1892) 1 Q. B. 226), and I think the same intention was intended by the Legislature when it enacted the Master and Servant Ordinance, and therefore it does not apply to a contract of this nature; but if I am wron