FAUSTINA TETTEH v. T. CHANDIRAM & CO. GH.LTD. & ORS

Justice S. K. Marful-Sau authored a unanimous Supreme Court judgment dismissing an appeal by a long-serving employee and director of the first and second respondent companies. After the High Court largely granted the appellant’s extensive reliefs—including monetary claims (US$400,000 and GHC 3,500), an allowance equal to the sales manager’s commission, and refunds of medical and vehicle maintenance costs—the Court of Appeal set aside those rulings. The Supreme Court struck out ten grounds for non-compliance with Rule 6(1)(f) of CI 16 and considered only the complaint that the Court of Appeal’s judgment was against the evidence. Re-examining the record, the Court held the appellant failed to discharge the evidential burden under section 11 of the Evidence Act and that director remuneration required an ordinary resolution under section 194(1) of Act 179. Medical and vehicle claims also failed for non-compliance and lack of particularization, and lifting the corporate veil was unjustified. The appeal was dismissed and the Court of Appeal’s decision affirmed.