CHARLES KWADWO GYASI v. MINING BUILDING CONTRACTORS LIMITED

AMADU JSC:-

INTRODUCTION:

(1)My Lords, the key issue for our decision in this appeal is, which of the two lower courts properly apprehended and evaluated the facts in issue before applying the law in arriving at their respective decisions. While the Trial Court in its decision dismissed the action of the Plaintiff/ Appellant/Respondent on the ground that it was premature, the Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal held otherwise and reversed the judgment of the Trial High Court. The Court of Appeal proceeded to enter judgment for Plaintiff/ Appellant/Respondent in part. Our determination of this appeal therefore, depends, on our own re-evaluation of the evidence on record within the context of the facts in issue and the application of the relevant law to the facts and evidence.

(2)BACKGROUND FACTS

The factual background to this dispute is not uncommon in industrial relations particularly, between an employer and employee. The Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent who for ease of reference shall be referred to simply as the Respondent is a former employee of the Defendant/Respondent/Appellant, who shall simply be referred to as the Appellant.

(3)The Respondent asserted that, he had worked as a Jack Hammer Operator with the Appellant since the 18th of October, 2004 until 31st July 2008 when he was dismissed from employment. He alleged that, he was dismissed by the Appellant on an allegation of attempted stealing.

(4)According to the Respondent, in June 2008, he together with two other employees-Yahaya and Seidu went to work at Level 23, No. 1354 cross-court. He averred that, after they were done with drilling, Yahaya left him and one Seidu Adams. He asserted further that, the said Seidu Adams instructed him to communicate to the other workers in the area that, they were going to blast at 3:00pm. The Respondent complied with this instruction, and upon his return, he was informed by Seidu that, he had already ignited the dynamite. The Respondent averred that, as a result, he left his bag what contained a rescuer, a water bottle and connection rubbers. According to him, Seidu Adams told him he could retrieve the bag and the items after the blasting was completed.

(5)The Respondent asserted further that, the following day, when he went to retrieve his bag, he was asked to see the security personnel who informed him that, he was suspected of attempting to steal some gold. The Respondent asserted that, he, together with others were paraded for identification. One