2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal, per Asiedu JA with Domakyaareh JA and Poku-Acheampong JA concurring, reviewed an appeal from the High Court, Obuasi, arising out of the dismissal of two employees of a private mining company. The incident began with a post-shift search monitored by CCTV and escalated when security officer Collins Afriyie intercepted the first employee away from the search point and later gave inconsistent, uncorroborated accounts of allegedly retrieving gold-bearing material. Upholding the High Court’s conclusion that the dismissals were unlawful, the Court emphasized that once the employer pleaded theft in its defence, section 13(1) of the Evidence Act required proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which was not satisfied. The Court also affirmed serious procedural lapses by the company’s CDC under Article 23 and its Disciplinary Code and Collective Agreement. However, the Court varied the High Court’s generous damages, holding that in private employment the appropriate remedy was damages limited to one year’s salary, and it upheld costs of GH₵8,000 per respondent. The appeal thus succeeded in part only on the variation of damages.
ASIEDU, JA.
My lords, this appeal is brought against the judgment of the High Court, Obuasi delivered on the 12th day of February 2019. The Plaintiffs/Respondents had, on the 13th day of October 2015, filed a writ of summons against the Defendant/Appellant before the High Court for:
a. A declaration that the dismissal of the Plaintiffs from their lawful employment with the 1st Defendant Company was unlawful, illegal, unfair, wrongful and/or null and void.
b. An Order of the Honourable Court directed at the 1st Defendant Company to reinstate the Plaintiffs and pay them their salaries from January, 2012 to date of final judgment.
c. An Order of the Honourable Court directed at the 1st Defendant Company to pay the Plaintiffs the remainder of their two months’ salary which they received only half of the amounts involved after the investigation into their cases took more than the stipulated one month.
d. A further Order of the Honourable Court directed at the 1st Defendant Company to treat the Plaintiffs as their employees and deal with them in the same manner it has dealt with its employees after the judgment.
e. A further Order of the Honourable Court directed at the 1st Defendant Company to adequately compensate the Plaintiffs for unlawfully, illegally, unfairly and wrongfully dismissing them.
f. A further Order of the Honourable Court to pay them their retrenchment/redeployment benefits as the 1st Defendant-Company has done to some of its employees.
g. Costs including Counsel’s fees.
h. Any other relief(s) that the Honourable court may deem fit.
After hearing the case, the High Court found for the Plaintiffs/Respondents and entered judgment for most of the reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant/Appellant. Aggrieved, the Defendant/Appellant filed the instant appeal against the said judgment on the grounds that:
a. The learned trial judge erred when he held that the termination of the Plaintiffs/Respondents’ employment was unlawful.
b. The learned trial judge erred when he granted the Plaintiffs/Respondents seven (7) years salaries each, an additional six (6) months’ salary for the 1st Plaintiff/Respondent and twelve (12) months’ salary for the 2nd Plaintiff/Respondent as benefits, including long service and reparation.
c. The learned trial judge erred in awarding costs of GH₵8,000 to each of the Plaintiffs.
d. Additional grounds of appeal may be filed upon receiving the record of appeal.
On the basis of the grounds of appeal, t