AMBROSE DOTSE KLAH v. PHOENIX INSURANCE CO

AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC:

It is important to stress that the efficient conduct of a case includes the drafting of correct pleadings, the marshaling and adducing of the relevant evidence during the trial and the invocation of the correct principles of law. These are well-known basics. If counsel falls short in any of these areas, it may lead to failure of the action he or she has initiated or, correspondingly, success of an action he or she is defending. In such a situation, it is no use for counsel to turn around and blame the court for allowing technicalities to frustrate its primary and important function of justice. Courts do justice according to law. Accordingly, counsel cannot afford to take their eyes off the details of the law. This case is a classic example of counsel paying insufficient attention to detail resulting in the inevitable loss of the claim which is the subject of this inattention.

On the 30th of June 2009, the appellant herein, Ambrose Dotse Klah, filed a Notice of Appeal in the Registry of this court by which process he served notice that he was dissatisfied with the Judgment of the court of Appeal dated the 18th of December 2008.According to him the object of his dissatisfaction was:

“The part of the judgment which set aside the award of “severance and other awards”

These were his grounds of appeal:

The Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the award of severance award and other benefits having confirmed that the appeal was wrongfully dismissed.

The Court of Appeal failed in its duty to do justice to the applicant when it failed to

invoke its general powers to protect the applicant.

The Court of Appeal should have exercised the discretion to order the payment of

Severance awards having found that the

Defendant/Appellant/Respondent severed

the employment relationship.

The Court of Appeal erred in requiring the Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant to lead

exhaustive and elaborate evidence on his “severance and other

awards [benefits]”

when what he claimed to be due him was not challenged.

Additional grounds of appeal may be filed upon receipt of the record of proceedings.

Even though there was an indication that additional grounds would be filed; no such grounds were filed.

In order to appreciate the issues raised, it is necessary to set out briefly the events culminating in to the present appeal.

BACKGROUND

Until the 5th day of March 2005, the appellant was the Chief Accountant of the Phoenix Insurance Company, the respo