ISAAC BOATENG (Trading as Izak Hamalex Ventures) v. STANBIC BANK OF GHANA LTD

WELBOURNE (MRS), J. A.

Introduction This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court (Industrial/Labour Division) Accra dated19th day of November, 2013. Brief Facts: The brief facts of the matter are that, the Plaintiff/Respondent was a former employee of the Defendant/Appellant Company and was dismissed from the services of the Defendant/Appellant Company per a letter dated the 18th April, 2012 on the grounds of bringing the name of the Company into disrepute contrary to Appendix “C” A (ix) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The dismissal was issued after a Committee of Enquiry was established by management to investigate certain alleged malfeasance involving some of its staff.

A secret recording captured the alleged malfeasance as part of a private investigation by Anas Aremeyaw Anas on corruption within the Defendant/Appellant Company.

After several interviews with the Plaintiff/Respondent and other persons of interest to the matter, the Committee found Plaintiff/Respondent culpable of the acts as captured on the tape.

According to the Plaintiff/Respondent, even though she was the one captured in the video, she was not receiving money from a customer as the creator of the video sought to depict but rather she was receiving change from one of the about 20 persons she sent to run errands for her due to the hectic nature of her job and the fact that her immediate supervisor prevented her from going on lunch breaks.

She claimed the video was edited and illogical.

She further alleged that the Committee of Enquiry was biased and did not allow her to tell her side of the story thereby breaching her right to be heard before judgment.

She thus averred that her dismissal was unlawful.

The Defendant/Appellant denied that the Plaintiff/Respondent’s dismissal was unlawful.

The Appellant said that it followed all the due disciplinary procedures under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

It denied that the Committee of Enquiry was biased and failed to observe the audi alteram partem rule.

The Defendant/Appellant stated that the Respondent was only dismissed after fully considering her story, the said secret recording and interviews with persons of interest to the matter.

At the end of the day the Committee of Enquiry found per its investigations that Respondent was engaged in the collection of money from an unauthorised source which included a customer.

However, after testimonies and other pieces of evidence were presented by both parties in su