CHARLES AFFRAN v. SG-SSB LIMITED
2019
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
- BAFFOE-BONNIE, JSC (PRESIDING)
- GBADEGBE, JSC
- PWAMANG, JSC
- DORDZIE, JSC
- KOTEY, JSC
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Civil Procedure
2019
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision which reversed the High Court's ruling in favor of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, a Deputy Branch Manager, was found negligent in verifying signatures on forged transfer requests, leading to his termination. Both the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court determined that the Plaintiff was responsible for signature verification and his termination was neither wrongful nor unlawful, complying with his contract and the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651).
KOTEY, JSC:-
This appeal is taken against the judgement of the Court of Appeal, which judgment reversed a judgment of the trial High Court.
By a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal allowed in part an appeal filed by the Defendant/Appellant/Respondent (hereinafter the Defendant) against the decision of the High Court entered in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant (hereinafter the Plaintiff).
Facts
A brief background of the events leading to these proceedings would be necessary for a better appreciation of the issues raised in this appeal.
The Plaintiff was the Deputy Branch Manager of the Defendant bank’s Tema Fishing Harbour Branch. The Plaintiff was presented with two transfer request letters from Emefs Construction Limited, a customer of the Defendant, for the transfer of £32,400 and £82,364 to a customer of Emefs Construction Limited. The Plaintiff signed against the signatures on the transfer request letters and forwarded them to the International Business Centre (IBC) of the Defendant bank which deals with foreign transfers. After the IBC had completed its processes, it approved the request and duly transferred the said sums of £32,400 and £82,364 to the named beneficiary.
It subsequently transpired that the signature on the transfer request letters was a forgery and the Defendant bank was unable to recover the amounts transferred and thereby lost the £114,764.
The Defendant bank then charged the plaintiff with negligence in the verification of the signature on the transfer request letters. It contended that it was the responsibility of the Plaintiff to verify the signatures on the transfer request letters with the signatures and mandates in the Defendant Bank’s Core Banking System (Flexcube), that the Defendant failed to do this diligently, and that this set in motion the sequence of events that led to the wrong transfer and loss of the sum of £114,764.
The Defendant denied it was his sole responsibility, as Acting Branch Manager, to verify the signatures on the transfer request letters. He further contended that he had in fact verified the signatures on the transfer request letter before stamping and signing the transfer request letters.
After an internal (house) process, the Defendant bank terminated the employment of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for wrongful and unlawful termination of unemployment.
The Plaintiff per his Writ of Summons and accompanying Statement of Claim, claimed against the Defendant as