JUDGMENT

DARKO ASARE JSC:

1. My Lords, the appeal before this Honourable Court stems from a judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal, Accra on the 7th of July 2022, wherein the Court made an award in favour of the Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent for expenses incurred in his repatriation to Ghana, after the termination of his employment contract with the Defendants/Respondents/Appellants in Liberia.

2. For purposes of convenience, the Parties in these proceedings, shall bear the same designation that they bore in the trial court and accordingly the Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent herein shall be described as the Plaintiff, whilst the Defendants/Respondents/Appellants herein as the Defendants

FACTS

1. The Plaintiff’s claim arose from an employment contract for a term of one year from July 2012, by which he was engaged by the Defendants, a team of electrical contractors, through an organization by the name of Neural Link Engineering (NLE) which had won a contract in Liberia with the Liberia Electricity Corporation (LEC) to check on illegal meter connections. During the project, the Plaintiff sustained injuries and underwent surgery. He alleged that the Defendants abandoned him and failed to ensure his safety and repatriation to Ghana amidst the Ebola outbreak. The prayer for relief followed on from the particulars of the claim, and sought the following: -

1. An order to defendants to take care of plaintiff's medical treatment following his engagement by defendants to work in Liberia in the course of which he broke his thigh which now has a metal implanted which is overdue for removal.

2. One million dollars for injuries suffered upon his engagement by the defendants as an artisan to work for defendants in Liberia and other expenses incurred till his return on 3rd July 2015 which covers:

a. Pain and suffering....

b. Loss of blood... USD300,000 USD200,000

c. Transport and repatriation from Liberia....... USD100,000

d. Loss of amenities... USD400,000

3. 3% interest on LIBOR or 30% on the Ghana Cedi equivalent

4. Costs

1. In their Statement of Defence, the Defendants averred that the Plaintiff was provided with medical care and treatment, and that his engagement was extended beyond the initial one-year period. They further stated that the Plaintiff refused to comply with arrangements made for the removal of the implant and instead insisted on having the procedur