JUDGMENT OF ABOAGYE J.
The plaintiff herein has sued the two defendants for damages for wrongful dismissal. The acts which, according to the plaintiff, constitute his dismissal have been pleaded in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the statement of claim, and the reasons for their alleged unlawfulness have been pleaded in paragraphs 11 and 14 of the said statement of claim. I quote the four paragraphs:
"9. A few days later, i.e. on or about 21 February 1970, the plaintiff received a letter dated 20 February 1970 purporting to be signed by the Secretary to the Presidential Commission and Council of State addressed from the office of the Presidential Commission, informing the plaintiff that 'with effect from 22 February 1970 your service in the Public Service of Ghana will by virtue of section 9 (1) of the First Schedule to the Constitution come to an end and that on and after that date your services will no longer be required.'
A letter from the State Shipping Corporation (Black Star Line), i.e. the first and second defendants herein, dated 2 March 1970, purporting to be signed by one E.S. Decker, for Managing Director, entitled 'Termination of Appointment,' and addressed to the plaintiff, advised the plaintiff that 'in consequence of the termination of your appointment with effect from 22 February 1970, the housing facility which you had while in our employ ceased as from 22 February 1970,' and went on to give further directions consequential to, and on the assumption of the fact of, the plaintiff's dismissal.
Plaintiff's said dismissal is wrongful, and contrary to the terms of the service agreement entered into whether expressly, or by implication, or by operation of law, with first and second defendants.
Plaintiff's dismissal is contrary to article 138 of the Constitution, being entirely without just cause and despite the fact that plaintiff has always carried out his duties faithfully and without regard to any considerations save the profit and benefit of defendants."
It was further pleaded in paragraph 12 of the statement of claims that the defendants are estopped by the decision of the Supreme Court in [p.88] Sallah v. Attorney-General, Supreme Court, 20 April 1970, unreported; digested in (1970) C.C. 55, from asserting that the plaintiff could rightfully be dismissed from the public service of Ghana under section 9 (1) of the Constitution, Sched. I (Transitional Provisions).
In paragraph 6 of their statement of defence the defendants have pleaded that
