INTRODUCTION
The plaintiff originally sued the defendant on the 17th of March, 2017 for certain reliefs. However, on the 6th of May 2022, the plaintiff sought the leave of the court and amended his writ and statement of claim with the following reliefs endorsed on same:
(a) An order that the plaintiff was unlawfully dismissed under the guise of termination and the said purported termination was unlawful, capricious and against the fundamental rights to natural justice of the plaintiff as enshrined in the 1992 constitution.
(b) An order for the payment of salary arrears due to and owing to the plaintiff on account of the termination of his employment with interest at the prevailing commercial bank rate from 14th March, 2014 till the date of final payment together with various increments and bonuses that he may be entitled to.
(c) General damages of GH¢450,000.00 for unlawful termination of employment.
(d) Legal fees and cost.
ISSUES FOR TRIAL
2. The defendant denied any liability for the claims of the plaintiff in its statement of defence filed on the 9th of June 2017. On the 11th day of July, 2018 the court, then differently constituted, set down the following issues for determination at the trial:
(a) Whether or not the plaintiff’s appointment was wrongfully terminated?
(b) Whether or not the plaintiff received a fair hearing on the disciplinary issues raised by defendant prior to the termination of plaintiff’s appointment.
(c) Whether or not plaintiff blew a whistle over a stealing syndicate at defendant’s company for which plaintiff submitted a report to defendant prior to the termination of plaintiff’s appointment?
(d) Any other issue that may arise from the pleadings.
3. It must be noted here that the application for directions filed by the plaintiff on the 2nd of May 2018, had an issue ‘C’ as follows:
“Whether or not defendant observed due process and procedure outlined in the Collective Agreement for Professional and Managerial Staff Union in the termination of plaintiff’s appointment?”
This issue was however not set down for trial. The court then differently constituted, in its wisdom stated partly as follows:
“Having regards to the pleadings and issues as contained in the application for directions issues a,b,d,e, and f are set down as issues for trial”.
However in this judgment there will be no discussion of the original issue (e) which is “Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to his reliefs” because of the admonition of our
