ERIC ADJETEY ANANG VS NORPALM GHANA LIMITED

On the 10th day of May, 2021, the Plaintiff herein caused to be issued out of the registry of this court the following reliefs against the Defendant: 1. A declaration that the purported termination of the Plaintiff’s employment is for all purposes and in effect a redundancy masked as termination.

2. An order directed at the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff the sum representing his three(3) months basic salary for each year served as redundancy package which is the same package the Defendant has agreed to pay to its senior staff in the event of redundancy as per the Defendant’s conditions of service for senior staff effective 1st January, 2018. 3. Interest on the said sum in 2 above at the prevailing commercial lending rates from 1st October, 2020 till the date of final payment.

4. An order directed at the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff a sum equal to 20% of all sums found due him by the Honourable Court being his agreed legal fees on a full indemnity basis.

5. Cost. SUMMARY OF FACTS: In 2001, the Plaintiff was engaged by way of appointment by the Defendant as Finance Manager and rose through the ranks to become the General Manager of the Defendant’s company in 2006. At that time, this position was the highest in the Defendant’s company and thus accountable and answerable only to the Board of Directors.

The Plaintiff managed the affairs of the company in this capacity until African Tiger Holding Limited (ATHL)acquired a 31. 7 per centum of the Defendant’s shares in 2019. Things then began to change in the Defendant’s company as the Board was reconstituted which affected the operations of the Defendant’s business, the business itself and particularly the organisational structure, wherein positions were changed and the Plaintiff’s role also changed with the creation of the position of Chief Executive Officer(CEO) and others in addition to the Board compelling some staff, including the Plaintiff to reduce their salaries.

This was resisted by the Plaintiff, then heading the group of senior officers resisting the change/reduction in salaries and so the Plaintiff had to pay the price and was axed by the company which the Defendant called it “Termination” and the Plaintiff, also called it “a redundancy” in the circumstances.

It is against this background that the Plaintiff has instituted this action claiming amongst others redundancy package.

The writ of summons was accompanied with a 34 paragraphed statement of claim.

The Defendant initially filed