FAUSTINA TETTEH v. T. CHANDIRAM & CO. GH.LTD. & ORS
2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- S. K. Marful-Sau
- J. ANSAH
- V. J. M. DOTSE
- Anin YEBOAH
- PROF. N. A. KOTEY
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Corporate Law
- Evidence Law
2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellants claims of wrongful termination, unpaid allowances, and workplace discrimination were denied by the respondents. The High Court ruled mostly in favor of the appellant, but the Court of Appeal overturned this decision. The Supreme Court reviewed the grounds of appeal, particularly focusing on the appellants failure to provide detailed grounds of alleged legal errors and lack of credible evidence for her claims. The Court affirmed the appeal courts decision to set aside the High Courts judgment, concluding that the appellant did not meet the burden of proof required under the Evidence Act and that the corporate veil should not have been lifted to hold individual officers liable.
JUDGEMENT
MARFUL-SAU, JSC: -
This appeal is taken against the judgment of the Court of Appeal sitting in Accra. By the judgment which is dated 1st February 2018, the decision of the trial High Court, which entered judgment for the plaintiff/respondent/appellant was set aside. In this appeal, the plaintiff/ respondent/appellant shall be referred to as appellant and the defendants/ appellants /respondents shall be referred simply as respondents. The facts of this case briefly are that the appellant was an employee of the 1st and 2nd respondents’ companies since 1985. She was appointed a Director of the 1st and 2nd respondents after the death of one of the Directors. According to the appellant, relationship between her and the 3rd respondent, who was the Managing Director of the 1st respondent company became unpleasant in 2010. As a result, she was removed as a director of the companies, her work schedule was taken from her, she was denied payment of some allowances and was generally discriminated against in the work place. The appellant then took out a writ in the High Court claiming the following reliefs:
‘’1. A declaration that the purported ‘’Termination of appointment as director’’ of the 1st defendant company is void.
2. Declaration that the purported ‘’Termination of appointment as director’’ of the 2nd defendant company is void.
3. An order that the plaintiffs’ monthly allowance of GHC 500 as Director in the two companies be paid.
4. The sum of GHC 3,500 being the unpaid amount due to plaintiff as director’s allowance for the months of June, July and August in the year 2010 and for the months of September, October, November and December, 2011.
5. The sum of US$400,000.00
6. The plaintiff’s monthly allowance equivalent to the Sales Manager’s monthly commission on sales from December 2010 to date.
7. Refund of all payments of medical bills and monies paid for repairs and maintenance of vehicle used by plaintiff for official duties.
7a. An order directed at the defendants to pay to the plaintiff all other entitlement found due to the plaintiff.
8. Compensation for sexual harassment and victimization by the 3rd defendant and also discrimination against the plaintiff by defendants contrary to the provisions of the 1992 Constitution.
9. An order of injunction to restrain the 3rd defendant from further sexual harassment of plaintiff.
10. An injunction to restrain the defendants from victimizing and discriminating against the plaintiff.