FRANCIS KORANTENG v. CROCODILE MATCHETS (GHANA) LTD.
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ASARE KORANG, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- OFOE, J.A.
- HONYENUGA, J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Employment Law
- Tort Law
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal, speaking through Honyenuga J.A., reviewed an appeal from the High Court (Industrial/Labour Division, Accra) that had dismissed the defendant company’s application to strike out numerous paragraphs of the plaintiff’s reply. The plaintiff, formerly Managing Director designate and a director, challenged the termination of his appointment and alleged defamation based on a circulated statement about an “overall failure of confidence.” The appeal turned on the limits of pleadings under the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules), 2004 (C.I. 47), particularly Orders 11 and 81. Emphasizing that pleadings must state material facts, not evidence, the Court examined each contested paragraph. It upheld paragraphs 2–4, 8–9, and 11 as proper, but struck out paragraphs 5–7 and 12–19 as evidentiary, argumentative, repetitive, irrelevant, or scandalous, including accusations against a non-party (Mr. Michael Kearney). The Court further held that reliance on Order 1 rule 1 and Order 81 could not save fundamentally non-compliant pleadings, and allowed the appeal.
JUDGMENT
HONYENUGA, J.A.
This is an appeal by the defendant/appellant against the decision of the High Court, Industrial/Labour Division, Accra dated the 9th day of July 2010. The said judgment dismissed the defendant/appellant’s application to strike out plaintiff/respondent’s reply to the statement of defence.
The brief facts of this appeal is that the plaintiff/respondent was appointed the Managing Director designate and a director of the defendant/appellant from 1st March 2005 for a ten month probation to 31st December 2005. The plaintiff/appellant’s appointment was terminated by a letter dated 19th March 2009. The plaintiff/respondent contended that the termination of his appointment was contrary to law and natural justice. He also contended that the expression “the overall failure of a confidence in your ability to lead the company back to profitability” which was circulated insinuated that he was unsuitable or incompetent to manage a business as a Managing Director. Consequently, the plaintiff/respondent filed the instant writ of summons claiming as follows:
“damages for:-
(i) his unlawful termination or removal as Director of Defendant Company;
(ii) unfair termination of his appointment as Managing Director of defendant company on 19th March 2009;
(iii) the libelous expression on the “overall failure of confidence in your ability to lead back to profitability” which words circulated tend to lower the image of plaintiff in the estimation of his peers, professional colleagues and the public by an imputation that presents him as incompetent, inefficient in spite of his distinguished career and which words are calculated to bring him into hatred, contempt or ridicule and so diminish the respect and confidence in which he is held.
(2) interest on the claims.
(3) costs”.
The defendant/appellant entered appearance and filed a statement of defence. The plaintiff/respondent also filed a reply. Not quite satisfied with the reply as filed, the defendant/appellant filed an application under Order 11 rule 18 of CI 47 for an order to strike out paragraphs 2 – 9 and 11 – 19 of the reply as being vexatious, prejudicial and embarrassing to the fair trial of the action.
Upon hearing the said application the trial judge dismissed the application with no order as to costs. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the defendant/appellant filed the instant appeal which was subsequently amended based on the following grounds:-
“a. That the learned trial judge erred i