FORSTER YAW ADU- DARTEY VS THE CEO/PRESIDENT TELERELIANCE COMMUNICATION LIMITED )

The Plaintiff issued out this Writ of Summons against the Defendants on the 1st of April 2015 for the following reliefs: The sum of Twelve Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH₵12, 000. 00) being outstanding a) Balance on Plaintiff’s contract with Defendants.

b) Interest on the said amount from 15th October 2014 till date of judgment.

c) Legal fees based on approved Ghana Bar Association Scale Fees.

SUMMARY OF CASE PLAINTIFF’S CASE By an accompanying Statement of Claim and the Witness Statement of the Plaintiff filed on the 22nd of October 2015, the Plaintiff’s case is that he was employed on 1 contract as a Project Manager at the Defendants Company from 20th February, 2014. According to him, he was on a base salary of Eight Hundred Ghana Cedis(GH₵800. 00) and per his appointment letter he was entitled to compensation payment of Twelve Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH₵12, 000. 00) for every one thousand(1, 000) Indigo units installed.

Again, he was entitled to performance bonus every quarter and biannual review of his performance bonus.

His case further is that on the 15th of October, 2014 the Defendants terminated his appointment and in the termination letter stated that they would send him a payment of outstanding balance on his contract which said outstanding balance is not less than Twelve Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH₵12, 000. 00) because he has installed more than one thousand (1, 000) Indigo units.

According to the Plaintiff the Defendants have refused to send him the outstanding balance and have failed to pay him any performance bonus.

Again, they have failed to conduct the biannual review of the performance bonus and compensation as stipulated in his contract of employment.

DEFENDANTS CASE The Defendants entered appearance and filed a Defence denying the Plaintiff’s claim.

The case of the Defendants is set out in their Statement of Defence filed on the 8th of May 2015 and the Witness Statement of Renee French-Onumah filed on the 9th of November 2015. According to them, after his appointment, Plaintiff remained in their employment for about seven and half months when his employment was terminated on grounds of violation of company communication policy and insubordination which led to huge financial losses to the company.

Defendants maintained that no balance is due to the Plaintiff upon the termination of his appointment because the basis for any extra payment to Plaintiff apart from his monthly salary was conditional on the installation of one thousand (1, 000) I