KWABENA OTENG ASIAMAH & KINGSLEY ATTA-YEBOAH v. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK GHANA LTD
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- AKUA SARPOMAA AMOAH (MRS.)
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Evidence Law
- Contract Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiffs, former employees of the Defendant bank, claimed their employment was wrongfully terminated without justifiable cause. They sought various reliefs including payment of salaries and damages. The Defendant argued that the Plaintiffs were negligent, leading to fraud. The Court found the termination wrongful and awarded damages but did not declare the termination null and void. The Plaintiffs failed to prove their salary or attempts to find alternative employment, affecting the quantum of damages.
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiffs who, until the 7th day of January, 2010, were employees of the Defendant bank are before this Court seeking inter alia the following reliefs against the Defendant:
i. A declaration that the termination of the employment of the Plaintiffs was unlawful and therefore null and void;
ii. An order for the payment of their salaries, bonuses and incrementals from the date of termination of employment to date of determination of the case;
iii. An order for the payment of their Provident Fund and interest to date of determination of the case;
iv. An order for the payment of employers’ contribution of the Provident Fund with interest to date of the determination of the case;
v. An order directed at the Defendant Company to pay the severance packages of the Plaintiffs taking into account their length of service to the bank;
vi. General damages.
vii. Any order/orders as this Court may deem fit
The amended statement of claim filed jointly on behalf of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs on the 4th day of May, 2017 discloses that the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant on the 28th day of May, 1979 and the 16th day of February, 1989 respectively. On the 7th day of January, 2010 their respective appointments were terminated by the Defendant. Plaintiffs say this was without justifiable cause. According to them their termination letters charged them with negligence on grounds of their failure to:
a) Call for vouchers when entries were referred to them in the computer system before authorizing them.
b) Investigate the history of cause of entries to the BP client suspense accounts and upcountry clearing account.
c) Call for details of entries relating to the outward clearing suspense account of the Takoradi branch and examine outstandings over a period of three (3) days. (In the case of 1st Plaintiff).
d) Check the completeness of the work of the tick back clerk and also failing to confirm vouchers against the transaction activity report. (In the case of 2nd Plaintiff).
On the basis of these charges, the Defendant set up an Investigative Committee to Plaintiffs professional conduct in relation to the matter. At the end of the said investigations which spanned a period of about five (5) months, the Plaintiffs’ appointments were terminated by the Defendant. Plaintiffs aver that the said termination was wrongful and in sub-paragraphs (a) - (m) of their paragraph 13 spell out the grounds upon which they base this contention. Notable a