FELIX YAW BANI v. MAERSK GHANA LIMITED

DR DATE-BAH, JSC:

The Facts;

The plaintiff was the defendant company’s Inland Container Depot (or “ICD”) officer stationed at Kumasi. He was in charge of the defendant’s inland container depot there. By a letter of September 19, 2006, the defendant terminated the plaintiff’s appointment. The letter based the justification for this action on the findings made by a subcommittee set up by the defendant to inquire into the matter. The subcommittee had made the finding that the plaintiff had failed to exercise the required supervision over the Kumasi depot by allowing an unauthorized third party truck to be brought into the depot, contrary to company policy. The letter stated that the plaintiff’s failure to exercise effective supervision had placed the defendant at enormous risk.

The subcommittee’s inquiry had been necessitated by the following episode: a senior employee of the defendant visited its Kumasi depot on 17th August 2006 and found an unauthorized vehicle, which did not belong to the defendant, parked there, in breach of company regulations. This incident triggered the setting up of an investigative sub-committee by the defendant to inquire into it. According to the eventual report of the sub-committee, its terms of reference were:

1. “To ascertain whether Kenneth Kpedor, an employee of Maersk Ghana Ltd. Owns/manages the unauthorized third party truck, in question with registration number GR 3109 E;

2. To establish whether Yussif Seidu, also an employee of Maersk Ghana Ltd and driver of the said truck, obtained the consent of Kenneth Kpedor before driving the said truck into the depot;; and

3. To ascertain whether Felix Bani, ICD Supervisor, was aware of the presence of the third party truck at the Kumasi depot.”

The sub-committee found that the plaintiff was aware of a third party truck in the yard of the Kumasi depot on 27th July 2006, but did not take adequate steps to ensure that the truck was moved out within a reasonable time. It further concluded that the presence of the truck on the defendant’s premises had security implications which the plaintiff, in his capacity as depot supervisor, should have been aware of. The subcommittee however found that the plaintiff was not aware of the presence of the unauthorized truck in the depot on 16th August 2006.

Whilst the plaintiff’s employment was terminated, the other two employees whose conduct was also investigated by the subcommittee were only served with warning letters. Being dissatisfie