Augustin Bogoloh vs Intertek Ghana Limited
2017
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE GIFTY DEKYEM (MRS)
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
2017
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Plaintiff, employed by Defendant since 1986, had his employment terminated in 2016 with one month’s pay in lieu of notice. Plaintiff filed suit claiming wrongful termination and sought various reliefs. Key issues were whether Plaintiff was redundant, computation of severance, lawfulness of the termination, and Plaintiff’s entitlements. The court found the termination lawful as per the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651), rejected Plaintiff’s redundancy claim, and ruled Plaintiff was not entitled to any claims of compensation or benefits sought. Costs were awarded to the Defendant.
Defendant was Plaintiff’s employer.
Plaintiff averred that, he was employed by Defendant between March 1986 and 1993 when the latter was called Caleb-Brett.
Plaintiff averred that, in 1993, the company was sold to Q & Q Control Services and Plaintiff continued to work with Q&Q from 1993 to 1998. By letter dated 21 July, 1998 (exhibit A), Plaintiff was employed by Intertek Testing Services Caleb Brett at it’s Abidjan office as General Manager.
By a further employment contract (exhibit B, same as exhibit 1) between INTERTEK COMODITIES and Plaintiff, the latter was offered a position as an ex patriate to be stationed in Ghana as REGIONAL MANAGER for FRENCH WEST AFRICA effective 1st July, 2011. The terms of the contract were contained therein.
By letter dated 1st June, 2016 (exhibit C), Plaintiff’s employment was terminated by one month pay in lieu of notice.
The following were paid to Plaintiff on termination of his employment contract as follows: 1. One month salary in lieu of notice US$11, 881. 96 2. Redundancy Payment (5 months basic salary) US$77, 175. 60 3. Outstanding leave (39 days) US$20, 065. 50 4. Relocation Cost US$12, 500. 00 Total Amount due and paid US$121, 623. 06 Being aggrieved, Plaintiff commenced the instant action against the Defendant claiming per his amended writ of summons and statement of claim thus: a. A declaration that the termination of plaintiff’s appointment by the defendant is wrongful in law.
b. A declaration that it is wrongful in law for the defendant to declare the plaintiff redundant in the light of the Labour Act.
c. A declaration that it is unlawful and wrong in law for the defendant to sever relationship with the plaintiff without reference to their employment contract.
d. A declaration and an order that plaintiff is entitled to all his benefits under the contract document and any other statutory benefits including but not limited to salary, leave, social security contributions from date of termination of employment to retirement and also children’s annual school fees allowance.
Or in the alternative e. Accurate and standard computation of redundancy or severance package from 1998 and in addition to the reliefs below.
f. Damages for wrongful termination of appointment, wrongful redundancy and wrongful severance.
g. Refund of money paid for the service vehicle as it is supposed to be part of his retirement package h. Costs including legal fees.
Defendant denied Plaintiff’s claim and contended that, exhibit B c