IRENE TETTEY-ENYO v. ELECTRICITY COMPANY OF GHANA LTD.

PWAMANG JSC:-

My Lords, the applicant before us is praying for a review of the decision of the ordinary bench delivered on 29th June, 2022 on the main ground, that the ordinary bench inadvertently committed a basic error when they, by implication, upheld that the applicant is a public service.

The respondent sued the applicant in the High Court for wrongful dismissal at common law and among the reliefs claimed was for an order of reinstatement. The applicant defended the action by stating that the dismissal of the respondent was not wrongful and further that, even if it was wrongful, the respondent was entitled to only damages and not reinstatement since the applicant is not a public service.

In his judgment, the High Court judge held that the dismissal was wrongful and also that the applicant is a public service thus, apart from the award of damages, the applicant was liable to be ordered to reinstate the respondent. The trial judge relied on article 191 of the Constitution, 1992 which protects a member of the public services against dismissal without just cause, as well as the case of G.N.T.C. & Anor v Baiden [1991] 1 GLR 567. The High Court accordingly ordered that the respondent be reinstated forthwith and paid all areas of salary. In addition, the High Court awarded damages to the respondent in the sum equivalent to her 15 months salary. The applicant appealed against the judgment of the High Court but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety. The applicant further appealed to the Supreme Court and the ordinary bench allowed the appeal in part. The ordinary bench upheld the finding that the dismissal of the respondent was wrongful but disagreed with the awards that were made by the trial judge and affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The ordinary bench concluded their judgment as follows;

“The appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 21st May 2020, which decision upheld the judgment of the High Court dated 19th November, 2013 is allowed in part. The judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming all the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff is varied by setting aside the award of 15 months salary as damages for wrongful dismissal of the plaintiff. No order is made as to costs.”

The view of the matter that was taken by the ordinary bench was that, by the orders made by the trial judge for reinstatement of the respondent and payment of all areas of her salary, she was restored to the position she would have been but for the wron