EBENEZER GOLBERT ASARE v. MR. WANG & 3 ORS

JUDGMENT

The Plaintiff instituted the instant action against the 1st to 3rd Defendants herein on 27/10/14 and on 03/09/15, he applied to join 365 Daily Business Limited as the 4th Defendant. He sought four reliefs against the Defendants, namely:

The recovery of an amount of Forty Thousand Ghana Cedis ((GH¢ 40,000.00) being the amount of money the Defendants promised to pay the Plaintiff for which they have failed to pay in spite of repeated demands for same.

An order for the Defendants to pay damages for unlawful dismissal.

A further order for the Defendants to pay the Plaintiff all his outstanding salaries.

An order for the Plaintiff to pay Defendant 5% of the total gold that the Defendant conveyed from the mining site which is 730 grams.

After entry of appearance, the Defendants caused their solicitor to file a statement of defence on

11/11/14, but their defence was amended on 30/10/15 after the 4th Defendant had been joined to the suit.

THE PLAINTIFF'S CASE.

The Plaintiff described the 1st and 2nd Defendants as a married couple who manage the 4th Defendant company; and the 3rd Defendant as a translator for the 1st and 2nd Defendants. As gathered from his amended statement of claim, the Plaintiff's case is that he was employed by the owner of the 4th Defendant company, Mr. Wu, 'to drive him around' and to operate excavator machines. At a point in time, the Plaintiff alleged that Mr. Wu left the jurisdiction and in his absence, he was instructed to drive the 1st and 2nd Defendants which he did until the time of his alleged unlawful dismissal. His main grievance is that per his terms of employment with the 4th Defendant, he was to be paid a monthly salary of GH¢ 650.00 plus 5% of every gold he conveyed from the mining site. In all, the Plaintiff claimed that for the eighteen months he worked for the 4th Defendant, he conveyed 14,600 grams of gold. His other contention is that in the course of his employment, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants engaged him to assist them to acquire an excavator from proceeds of gold mined with a promise of giving him a vehicle worth GH¢ 40,000.00 but the promise was never fulfilled.

THE DEFENDANTS' CASE

The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants denied the Plaintiff's claims apart from the fact that he was an employee of the 4th Defendant company just like them. They stated that they could not have promised him any gold or a vehicle worth GH¢ 40,000.00 in view of the fact that none of the Defendants is engaged in direct gold mining