CHARLES YAW FUGAH v. COCOA MARKETING COMPANY

OFOE, J.A.

I will refer to the plaintiff/appellant and defendant/respondent as plaintiff and defendant respectively as they were in the trial court. The defendant Company was occasioning losses arising out of short weight of Cocoa exported to its customers. Upon arrival of the Cocoa at the destination port of the customers, the Cocoa bags were found to be short weighted. The buyers therefore surcharged the defendants for these short weights. The defendant decided to investigate these losses and after thorough investigation by two committees a recommendation was made for the termination of certain staff including the Plaintiff. The recommendation was carried out and the Plaintiff’s appointment was terminated. Aggrieved at the termination the Plaintiff sued the defendant claiming

(a) A declaration that the termination or purported termination of Plaintiff’s employment is unlawful and null and void.

(b) An order restating the Plaintiff.

(c) Further or in the alternative damages for wrongful termination of appointment.”

By the pleadings of the parties the main issue for trial was whether the defendant complied with its Collective Bargaining Agreement giving the plaintiff the opportunity to defend himself before his appointment was terminated. Indeed it was the substance of the issues for trial set by the trial Court. It needs to be mentioned that the defendants counter claimed, although not set as part of the issues for trial, and introduced the issue whether the plaintiff should be liable to a total cost of 1075 bags of cocoa beans lost to the defendant.

The trial judge dismissed the whole of Plaintiffs claims and dismissed the counterclaim as well. It is against this dismissal that the plaintiff is aggrieved and has appealed to this court praying that we set aside the trial judgment and enter judgment in his favour. He has two grounds of appeal. That

“(a) The judgment is against the weight of evidence.

(b) The learned trial judge erred in holding that he plaintiff’s employment was terminated in accordance with this contract of service.”

In his written submission Counsel for the plaintiff decided to argue both grounds of appeal together. I think this decision is in order. The substance of his submissions was that there was no evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt, as demanded by the Article 15(a)(i)and(ii) and (c) that the defendant had committed the offence of dishonesty, by deliberately receiving short weighted cocoa in stock. It is his case tha