ANDOH v. AMANSIE LOCAL COUNCIL AND OTHERS
1966
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ATTOH J
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
1966
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The court held the plaintiff's dismissal by the defendants to be wrongful after he was acquitted of embezzlement charges by the Supreme Court. The decision rested on the mandatory obligations under the Local Government regulations which required the defendants to reinstate the plaintiff and pay his salary during his interdiction. Due to the wrongful dismissal, the plaintiff was awarded damages for the lost salary and an additional amount for the wrongful dismissal. The judgment emphasizes the obligations of employers under statutory regulations and the rights of employees post-acquittal in criminal cases.
JUDGMENT OF ATTOH J.
This is a case in which the plaintiff claims against the defendants jointly and severally (1) £G800 damages for wrongful dismissal from the defendants' employment as market clerk; and (ii) £G519 11s. 8d. being arrears of salary for the period of 29 months from May 1962 to September 1964 at the rate of £G17 18s. 4d.
When pleadings were closed the issues for trial were settled as those in the summons for directions. The plaintiff in evidence said that he was employed as a market clerk by the defendants at a monthly salary of £G17 18s. 4d. Some time in 1962 he said he was charged with embezzling the sum of about £G1,000 before a circuit court at Kumasi. He was tried, convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. During the trial he was interdicted with effect from 1 May 1962. He appealed to the Supreme Court against his conviction and sentence and the appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence were quashed, a verdict of not [p.323] guilty entered, and he was acquitted and discharged by the Supreme Court on 15 July 1963 (reported sub nom. Andoh v. Commissioner of Police1). Fifteen months after the appeal he received (from the defendants) exhibit B, dated 8 September 1964, dismissing him with retrospective effect from 1 May 1962, the date of interdiction. The plaintiff therefore claims as in his writ of summons and statement of claim. The defence filed admitted dismissing the plaintiff but alleged that the defendants were not obliged to pay the plaintiff's salary or to re-instate him. They deny wrongful dismissal of the plaintiff and relied on section 124 of the Local Government Act, 1961.2
In evidence the representative of the defendants said the plaintiff was surcharged with the sum of £G1064 18s. 10d. and was notified of this but he replied to say he would not pay. This was never pleaded and there is no counterclaim before the court for this amount. It appears from the evidence that although the defendants stated in exhibit B that the plaintiff was dismissed "for gross negligence of duty," this has not been proved by the defendants. The burden is on the defendants to justify the dismissal and to prove the gross negligence alleged in exhibit B. The representative of the defendants does not seem to know much about the case. All the allegations of the defendants in their statement of defence have not been proved or substantiated before this court.
Reading the judgment of the Supreme Court, exhibit A, it