GH - JOHN KENNEDY MORTEY VS. ELECTRICITY COMPANY OF GHANA LTD

INTRODUCTION

(1) It is the decision of this court, after a careful consideration of all the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties herein, that the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs he seeks from the defendant and that his case is worthy of a dismissal.

The following discourse will explain the reasons of the court for coming to such a decision.

The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant company from 26th November, 1999 until the 26th day of October, 2012 when he was dismissed by the defendant for violating its manual of staff regulations and conditions of service for its senior staff.

The plaintiff was obviously aggrieved by or dissatisfied with his dismissal therefore he brought the instant action against the defendant, seeking the following reliefs: (i) A declaration that the dismissal of the plaintiff by the defendant from its employment was unfair, illegal and wrongful.

ii) An order for the re-instatement of the plaintiff and the payment to him of all salaries, allowances and increments from the 26th day of October, 2012 when the plaintiff was wrongfully, unfairly and illegally dismissed till date of his re-instatement with interest calculated thereon.

ALTERNATIVELY(iii) Damages for wrongful dismissal of the plaintiff by the defendant.

iv) Any other reliefs found due.

The defendant promptly denied liability for the claims of the plaintiff, describing same as“frivolous and unmeritorious”. ISSUES FOR TRIAL(4) At the close of pleadings the following issues inclusive of additional ones filed by defendant were set down for determination: (i) Whether or not the plaintiff’s contract of employment with the defendant was unlawfully terminated? (ii) Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to general damages against the defendant for wrongful dismissal? (iii) Whether or not the defendant owes the plaintiff salaries, allowances and increments from the date of wrongful dismissal till date of re-instatement? (iv) Whether or not the plaintiff ought to be re-instated? (v) Whether or not the transaction between the plaintiff and Madam Justina Okanta was a private one and had no bearing or implication on the defendant? (vi) Whether or not the plaintiff was dismissed in accordance with the disciplinary procedure as provided under the collective agreement between the defendant and its staff? (vii) Whether or not the actions of the plaintiff in his dealings with Madam Okanta brought the name of the defendant into disrepute? (viii) Any o

INTRODUCTION

The following discourse will explain the reasons of the court for coming to such a decision.

The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant company from 26th November, 1999 until the 26th day of October, 2012 when he was dismissed by the defendant for violating its manual of staff regulations and conditions of service for its senior staff.

ALTERNATIVELY(iii) Damages for wrongful dismissal of the plaintiff by the defendant.

iv) Any other reliefs found due.

The defendant promptly denied liability for the claims of the plaintiff, describing same as“frivolous and unmeritorious”. ISSUES FOR TRIAL(4) At the close of pleadings the following issues inclusive of additional ones filed by defendant were set down for determination: (i) Whether or not the plaintiff’s contract of employment with the defendant was unlawfully terminated? (ii) Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to general damages against the defendant for wrongful dismissal? (iii) Whether or not the defendant owes the plaintiff salaries, allowances and increments from the date of wrongful dismissal till date of re-instatement? (iv) Whether or not the plaintiff ought to be re-instated? (v) Whether or not the transaction between the plaintiff and Madam Justina Okanta was a private one and had no bearing or implication on the defendant? (vi) Whether or not the plaintiff was dismissed in accordance with the disciplinary procedure as provided under the collective agreement between the defendant and its staff? (vii) Whether or not the actions of the plaintiff in his dealings with Madam Okanta brought the name of the defendant into disrepute? (viii) Any o

JOHN KENNEDY MORTEY VS. ELECTRICITY COMPANY OF GHANA LTD

Areas of Law

JUDGMENT