GH - DORCAS AMO-BRONI VS CIRRUS OIL SERVICES LIMITED

(1) INTRODUCTION The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant until the 12th of December, 2018 when her appointment was terminated.

She was employed on the 9th of March 2010 as a Marketing Assistant and she worked for the defendant, a company engaged in the supply of refined oil products like diesel, pms, kerosene etc.

to oil marketing companies and some other bulk distribution companies, until the 12th day of December 2018 when the employment relationship was severed by the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff had breached its code of ethics and professional standards.

RELIEFS The plaintiff was obviously aggrieved by the termination of her appointment and therefore she sued the defendant for the following reliefs: (a) Declaration that the termination of the plaintiff’s employment with the defendant company is against the rules of natural justice.

b) A further declaration that the termination of the plaintiff’s employment is unlawful.

c) An order of the Court directed at the defendant to pay to the plaintiff an amount of GH¢5, 000, 000. 00 as damages for unlawful termination of employment and invasion of the plaintiff’s privacy.

d) An order directed at the defendant to pay to the plaintiff salary for work done in December 2018, her provident fund and all other entitlements that is due her.

e) Costs including solicitor’s cost. The defendant denied liability for the plaintiff’s claims.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION At the close of pleadings the following issues inclusive of one additional issue filed by the defendant were set down for determination by the court: -(1) Whether or not defendant deals with oil marketing companies (OMCs) through agents or brokers? (2) Whether or not Paa Kwesi is a known agent for any OMC that the defendant supplies oil to? (3) Whether or not by operational practice BDCs and for that matter the defendant company deals with OMC and not through their agency or brokers.
Whether or not Paa Kwesi and for that matter any person lodged complaint against the plaintiff for extorting money from him or her in the performance of her official duties? (5) Whether or not plaintiff extorted money from Paa Kwesi which led him to lodge a complaint against the plaintiff to defendant? (6) Whether or not the defendant in investigating the acclaimed allegation made against the plaintiff complied with the procedure provided in the Human Resource Policies of the defendant company.
Whether or not the plaintiff was given a chance t

(1) INTRODUCTION The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant until the 12th of December, 2018 when her appointment was terminated.

She was employed on the 9th of March 2010 as a Marketing Assistant and she worked for the defendant, a company engaged in the supply of refined oil products like diesel, pms, kerosene etc.

RELIEFS The plaintiff was obviously aggrieved by the termination of her appointment and therefore she sued the defendant for the following reliefs: (a) Declaration that the termination of the plaintiff’s employment with the defendant company is against the rules of natural justice.

b) A further declaration that the termination of the plaintiff’s employment is unlawful.

d) An order directed at the defendant to pay to the plaintiff salary for work done in December 2018, her provident fund and all other entitlements that is due her.

e) Costs including solicitor’s cost. The defendant denied liability for the plaintiff’s claims.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION At the close of pleadings the following issues inclusive of one additional issue filed by the defendant were set down for determination by the court: -(1) Whether or not defendant deals with oil marketing companies (OMCs) through agents or brokers? (2) Whether or not Paa Kwesi is a known agent for any OMC that the defendant supplies oil to? (3) Whether or not by operational practice BDCs and for that matter the defendant company deals with OMC and not through their agency or brokers.
Whether or not Paa Kwesi and for that matter any person lodged complaint against the plaintiff for extorting money from him or her in the performance of her official duties? (5) Whether or not plaintiff extorted money from Paa Kwesi which led him to lodge a complaint against the plaintiff to defendant? (6) Whether or not the defendant in investigating the acclaimed allegation made against the plaintiff complied with the procedure provided in the Human Resource Policies of the defendant company.
Whether or not the plaintiff was given a chance t

DORCAS AMO-BRONI VS CIRRUS OIL SERVICES LIMITED

Areas of Law

JUDGMENT