FREEMAN MEDEGLI VS GHANA OIL COMPANY LIMITED
2024
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- SENYO DZAMEFE, JA (PRESIDING)
- ALEX B. POKU-ACHEAMPONG, JA
- DR. ERNEST OWUSU-DAPAA, JA
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Contract Law
2024
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
GOIL appealed against the High Court, Tema’s judgment in favour of Freeman, its former Consumer Marketing Manager, whose employment was terminated after probation and assignment of KPAs for January–June 2018. The High Court found the termination unfair and unlawful because Freeman was neither queried nor heard and GOIL failed to prove alleged misconduct (breach of trust, unauthorized credits, unauthorized survey). It ordered payment of emoluments and either reinstatement or re-employment, plus costs. On appeal, Dzamefe JA, with Poku-Acheampong JA and Owusu-Dapaa JA agreeing, re-evaluated the record under the omnibus ground and affirmed the High Court’s core findings: GOIL did not discharge its burden under the Labour Act and breached natural justice. The Court of Appeal set aside the reinstatement/re-employment order as impracticable in private employment, holding that emoluments and compensation suffice. Except for that modification, the appeal failed and the judgment stood.
DZAMEFE, JA
INTRODUCTION
For the purposes of convenience the parties in this appeal shall retain their original designation as the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court Tema dated, 28th day of November 2019 filed this appeal.
BACKGROUND
The plaintiff in this suit at the High Court claimed for;-
1. Recovery of all emoluments and allowances from the date of unlawful termination of appointment to date of final judgment.
2. An order directed to the defendants to reinstate the plaintiff.
The plaintiff in his statement of claim averred that by an offer letter dated the 27th day of March 2017 he was employed as a Consumer Marketing Manager by the defendant company. By the letter of employment, the plaintiff was put on six (6) months probation from the 2nd day of May, 2017. Plaintiff averred he had served the period of probation and in January 2018, was given his Key Performance Areas (KPA) for the period January to June, 2018.
It is the plaintiff’s case that he discharged his duties diligently and without any queries from the defendant until the 28th day of March 2018 when he received a letter from the defendant terminating his appointment on the grounds that he is unlikely to meet its expectations.
Plaintiff contends that his termination is wrongful as same was based on presumptions and very unfair reasons. Wherefore he instituted this action against the defendant.
The defendant in its defence to the action admitted that indeed it employed the plaintiff on probation which he served and was given his key performance areas in January, 2018. The defendant averred it found out later that the plaintiff during his probation period breached the trust of his subordinates as well as his colleagues and could not be expected to continue working with them.
The defendant averred further that the plaintiff also breached its operational procedures and gave huge unauthorized credits to customers who were at large resulting in potential losses to the defendant company. That the defendant holds the plaintiff responsible for all unauthorized credits he gave to customers that cannot be traced.
The defendant also averred that the plaintiff, during his period of engagement in the defendant company, acted in other ways that were detrimental to the interest of the defendant and could not be expected to continue working with the company.
The defendant said the plaintiff’s appointment was duly terminated in accordance w