GODSON GAKPO v. LUCKY OIL

JUDGMENT

FACTS

The Plaintiff herein, a former employee of the defendant company caused a

writ of summons to issue against the defendant praying the court for the

following reliefs;

a. A declaration that the termination of the Plaintiff’s appointment by the

defendant is wrongful.2

b. General damages for such wrongful termination of appointment.

c. Costs.

The plaintiff’s case is that he was employed by the defendant company in the

year 2004. According to the plaintiff, through his efforts, the company has

expanded its operations and opened fourteen gas and fuel stations. The

plaintiff says that he worked assiduously until 21st February, 2020, when

whilst on fourteen days leave, he received a letter from the Managing Director

terminating his employment contract. According to the plaintiff, in the letter

of termination, the defendant levelled certain allegations against him which

he deems unfounded. The plaintiff says that throughout the long period he

worked with the company, he was never queried or suspended for any

untoward behaviour. The plaintiff says further that he has never appeared

before any disciplinary committee to answer charges prior to the termination

of his employment. The plaintiff therefore contends that the termination of his

appointment is wrongful.

The Defendant entered appearance through its lawyers on 9th October, 2020,

and filed a Statement of Defence. The defendant admits that the plaintiff was

an employee of the company until the termination of his employment but

deny that the termination is wrongful. In specific denial, the defendant states

that the growth and expansion of the company is not through the efforts of

the plaintiff but rather, through the sound investment drive and growth by

the defendant and its Board of Directors. The Defendant avers that Plaintiff

was a Senior High School leaver at the time, and through the wife of the

Managing Director, he was employed by the company. According to the

defendant, the plaintiff was initially employed at the Aflao branch of the

company and later transferred to the Tema branch when the Managing3

Director moved to Tema. The defendant also sponsored the plaintiff to study

marketing to assist the company.

The defendant further states that when the plaintiff was on leave, many

wrong doings were discovered and the plaintiff was confronted with them

but had never denied them. According to the defendant, the plaintiff was

queried several times to desist fro