DAVID MAWUSI AGBELI v. MERCHANT BANK GHANA LTD.

F.G. KORBIEH, J.A.

In order to put this appeal in proper perspective, it is necessary for me to recapitulate the facts leading to it. The plaintiff/appellant (whom I shall hereinafter refer to only as the plaintiff) sued the defendant/respondent (hereinafter referred to only as the defendant or defendant bank or just the bank) claiming against the latter four reliefs, to wit (a) a declaration that his dismissal from the bank was unlawful, (b) an order that the bank paid the whole of his salary and other entitlements due him from January, 2008 to the date of final payment, (c) general damages for wrongful dismissal and (d) special damages amounting to GHC80,187.03 per year or GHC6,682.25 per month being loss of income in alternative employment as a result of the pendency of the allegation of financial impropriety leveled by the defendants. The plaintiff’s case before the trial court was that he had been employed by the bank on the 15/8/2005 and “worked diligently and efficiently till 6th February, 2008, [when] the Defendant wrote a letter dismissing Plaintiff from its employment.”His case was that even where he had granted loans in excess of his authority, he had always sought clearance first from his “next higher authority” or had the act ratified by his superiors. He further contended that whatever he did accorded with long standing practice in the bank which had developed into convention. He therefore contended that it was wrong for the defendant to dismiss him on the basis of the allegations made against him by the defendant. He was thus entitled to the reliefs he was claiming against the defendant. The defendant denied any liability towards the plaintiff and contended in the trial court that the plaintiff had breached the bank’s rules and regulations which had led the bank to take action against him “in line with its policy”. It argued that despite the credit policy of the bank, the plaintiff had, on numerous occasions granted loans in excess of his limitation and thus contributed to the bank’s liquidity problems. According to the bank, this amounted to misconduct on the part of the plaintiff hence his dismissal from the employment of the bank.

After a full trial the trial court gave judgment against the plaintiff and threw out all his claims. The learned trial judge found as an uncontested fact that the plaintiff granted loans in excess of his authority. He again foundas a fact that the plaintiff’s actions in seeking the approval of the managing d