KENNETH DEGBOR v. ATLANTIC PORT SERVICES
June 12, 2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- DOTSE, JSC (PRESIDING)
- YEBOAH, JSC
- APPAU, JSC
- PWAMANG, JSC
- MARFUL-SAU, JSC
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Corporate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
June 12, 2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
A senior management employee hired in 1999 by a Ghanaian company challenged his 2008 interdiction and non-payment of salary. In September 2011 the Managing Director issued a reinstatement letter finding the allegations baseless and directing arrears to be computed and paid; the employee returned to work and later notified voluntary retirement effective 24 December 2012. He claimed GHc327,486.47 comprising unpaid interdiction arrears and retirement benefits. The High Court dismissed the claim, but the Court of Appeal reversed under the omnibus ground, holding the reinstatement lawful under the Companies Act and the quantum uncontested. On further appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding implied acceptance of retirement, endorsing entitlement to the full amount, and awarding interest under C.I. 52 from 24 December 2012 to payment.
APPAU, JSC:-
The respondent herein was the plaintiff in the trial High Court. He sued the appellant herein who was his employer as defendant, claiming three (3) major reliefs plus other ancillary ones. The major reliefs were: i. a claim for the liquidated sum of GHc327,486.47, which he described as outstanding balance of arrears of unpaid salaries and allowances during the period of plaintiff’s wrongful interdiction and voluntary retirement package; ii. interest on the said sum from 26th September 2011 till date of payment and; iii. damages for wrongful interdiction. The ancillary reliefs were: iv. An order to set aside a purported re-imposition of plaintiff’s earlier wrongful interdiction and; v. a declaration that plaintiff lawfully and effectively retired from defendant’s employment upon the attainment of fifty-five (55) years on 24/12/2012.
Plaintiff lost in the trial High Court but on appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the trial High Court and entered judgment in his favour in respect of some of his reliefs. His employer the defendant is now before us praying us to also reverse the Court of Appeal and restore the judgment of the trial High Court. The parties (i.e. appellant and respondent) shall hereinafter, maintain their titles as pertained in the trial High Court; i.e. defendant and plaintiff respectively.
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff’s case
The gravamen of plaintiff’s case was that he was employed by the defendant on 1st December 1999 until he voluntarily retired as a senior management staff on 23rd December 2012. Somewhere in the year 2007, whilst on leave, he received a letter on 14th November 2007 informing him that an anomaly had been detected in his salary so he was going to be paid fifty per centum (50%) of his salary pending investigations into the alleged finding. He received this half salary for only two months; i.e. October and November 2007. He didn’t receive any salary again until 14th January 2008 when he received a letter that he had been interdicted. He fought his interdiction and sent a petition to the National Labour Commission against the defendant. On 26th September, 2011, whilst his petition before the National Labour Commission was pending, he received a letter from the defendant signed by the Managing Director, re-instating him on the ground that the allegation against him which led to his interdiction, had been found to be without substance. The letter stated further that all his arrears of salary and