Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
April 21, 1996
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.
After stating the facts continued:] It was submitted for the defendants that they have not dismissed the plaintiff; that they merely suspended him, pending a checking of statement of accounts submitted by the plaintiff to the company out of which a quarrel arose.
In the first place the defendants are estopped by the averment in paragraph 9 of their statement of defence that they dismissed the plaintiff, from now denying that they dismissed him. Moreover, there is nothing in the service agreement, exhibit A which could be construed as giving the defendants power to suspend the plaintiff for any cause. The law is that in the absence of any express or implied term in a contract giving power to a master to suspend his servant from his employment for misconduct, the master is not entitled to punish the servant for alleged misconduct by suspending him from employment; if he suspends him he will be liable to pay to the servant all wages due to him for the duration of the suspension: see Volume 25 of Halsbury's Laws of England, (3rd ed.) page 518, paragraph 989 and Hanley v. Pease and Partners Ltd.1 Therefore even if this were a case of suspension the defendants will still be liable to the plaintiff.
The defendants did dismiss the plaintiff; there is no justification whatever for the dismissal, the evidence shows clearly that the dismissal is wrongful. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to damages. He is in law entitled as damages to the amount he has been prevented from earning by reason of the wrongful dismissal.2 The plaintiff was dismissed on or about the 6th of September, 1960. At that date he was owed arrears of salary for July and August, amounting to £G320. He was out of employment from September to the 16th December, 1960. Consequently he lost his salary for three and a half months amounting to £G560. But he claims only £G500 damages for his wrongful dismissal, and so the court cannot award him more.
DECISION
Judgment for plaintiff.
AI Generated Summary
In this employment dispute, OLLENNU J. addressed whether the defendants had wrongfully dismissed the plaintiff or merely suspended him pending a checking of accounts submitted to the company after a quarrel. The court held that the defendants were estopped by their own statement of defence admitting dismissal from denying it. It also found no power to suspend in the service agreement (exhibit A) and reiterated the common law rule, cited from Halsbury and Hanley v. Pease, that an employer lacking an express or implied contractual term cannot suspend as punishment and would owe wages if suspension were imposed. On the evidence, the defendants had indeed dismissed the plaintiff without justification, making the dismissal wrongful. Damages were measured by the earnings the plaintiff was prevented from obtaining, but the award was limited to £G500 because that was the amount claimed. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff.