ANTHONY EMMANUEL CRANKSON v. NADMO & THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- HONYENUGA, JA, PRESIDING
- ADJEI, JA
- ACKAH-YENSU, JA
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Plaintiff, an employee of 1st Defendant, claimed ownership of a company-provided flat and was subsequently transferred and his salary withheld. His termination was deemed lawful by the High Court which dismissed his claim and upheld the Defendant's counterclaim. On appeal, the Plaintiff argued the judgment was against the weight of evidence and that his dismissal was wrongful. The appellate court reviewed the evidence, confirming the flat was owned by the Defendant and that correct termination procedures were followed, dismissing the appeal for lack of merit.
DENNIS ADJEI . JA:
On 28th June, 2006 the High Court Sekondi dismissed the Plaintiff's claim as endorsed on his writ of summons and entered judgment for the defendants on their counterclaim. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial High Court filed an appeal to this court. In this appeal the Plaintiff /Appellant would be referred to as Plaintiff and the Defendants/ Respondents as Defendants.
The brief facts of the case culminating in this appeal were that the Plaintiff was an employee of the 1st defendant and stationed at Takoradi. The 1st Defendant acquired a duty post accommodation from Social Security National Insurance Trust (SSNIT) and gave it to the Plaintiff to occupy in his capacity as an employee. There was a tenancy agreement between SSNIT and the 1st defendant and the premises was described in the tenancy agreement as Flat No 2B on the ground floor of Block 1 Anaji. At a point in time the Plaintiff asserted ownership to the duty post flat. His case was that he negotiated for it but the policy governing the allocation of the flats was that it was allocated to institutions and not individual employees and as a result of that it was allocated in the name of his employer; the 1st defendant. The 1st Defendant transferred the Plaintiff to its District Office at Jomoro in the Western Region. The Plaintiff saw his transfer as unfair and unjust and decided not to go to his new station. The Plaintiff did not receive his salary for October, 2003. He made an investigation and found that an embargo had been placed on his salary by the 1st defendant for having vacated his post. He lodged a complaint against the 1st defendant with Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) at Takoradi. CHRAJ investigated the case and found two of the plaintiff's reliefs as frivolous and found the third relief for him. The two reliefs which were found to be frivolous were that the Plaintiff was not a recognized tenant of the flat, that is the subject matter of the 1st defendant's counterclaim and secondly, the Plaintiff vacated his post and was not entitled to reinstatement. However, the 1st defendant was directed to pay the Plaintiff's salary up to 29th January, 2004 based on the number of days he attended work from 1st November, 2003 to 29th January, 2004.
On 29th January, 2004 the 1st defendant terminated the Plaintiff’s employment. The plaintiff took out a writ against the defendants challenging the basis of his transfer and the termin