JUSTICE AWUKU-SAO v. GHANA SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.

JUDGMENT

ADINYIRA (MRS), J.S.C:-

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 4 February 2005 affirming an earlier judgment of the High Court Accra dated 1 March 2004 dismissing the action of the plaintiff/appellant ( hereinafter plaintiff.) The grounds of appeal are:

1. The Court of Appeal erred in upholding the finding made by the learned trial judge that the comments submitted by the Plaintiff on the Interim Audit Report constituted a hearing and an opportunity to present his side of the case. The failure by the Court of Appeal to set aside that wrongful finding has occasioned the Plaintiff a grave miscarriage of justice.

2. The Court of Appeal fell into grave error in upholding the judgment of the trial court which judgment was totally against the weight of the evidence adduced at the trial having regard particularly to the unproven allegations of misconduct levelled against the Plaintiff and the trial courts own finding amongst others that the Final Audit Report on the basis of which the Plaintiff was summarily dismissed itself contained several errors.

3. The Court of Appeal erred when it reached the wrongful and untenable conclusion that having regard to the conflict between Exhibit 'F' the Conditions of Service for Senior Staff and Exhibit' A' the Plaintiffs Letter of Appointment it was not envisaged that the Plaintiff could be covered by the disciplinary procedures set out in Exhibit 'F'. On the contrary the Court of Appeal ought to have held that the mere absence of any disciplinary procedures in the plaintiff’s letter of appointment did not in any way relieve the defendant Board Of Directors which exercised final disciplinary authority over the plaintiff of their duty to comply with the very procedures the defendant had itself spelt out in Exhibit ‘F’ for its employees in conformity with the rules of natural justice.

4. The Court of Appeal erred in upholding the finding of the learned trial judge that the defendant was not liable for damages for defamation.”

FACTS OF THE CASE

The plaintiff has been in the service of the Defendant/respondent (hereinafter defendant) for 13 years prior to his appointment as the Managing Director on 1 September 2001 for a term of 5 years. He was asked to proceed on his accrued leave in December2002. While on his extended leave, the Board of Directors requested, the Auditor General to undertake a forensic audit and management review of the operations of the company. According to the