MISS SUSAN DOWKOR FOR MICHAEL AMAFU-DEI FOR RESPONDENT
1999
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- Wood, J.A. (Presiding)
- Benin, J.A.
- Afreh, J.A
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
1999
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant's employment was terminated by the respondent corporation due to the use of unacceptable language. The termination letter cited specific breaches of the Trust's procedures but did not result in summary dismissal. Dissatisfied, the appellant sought a declaration that the termination was a nullity and damages for wrongful dismissal. The trial court dismissed his claims, leading to this appeal. Key issues on appeal included whether the termination was wrongful, the admissibility of certain evidence, and procedural compliance. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, finding no merit in the appellant's grounds for appeal. The court also held that it has the discretion to extend filing deadlines for written submissions and that the trial judge did not err in allowing amendments to the defense. Additionally, the court confirmed that the rules of service were applicable and admissible, and that the personnel involved in the termination had the proper authority.
REASONS
WOOD, J.A.:
We dismissed this appeal from the decision of Her Honour Miss A.M.A. Dzordzie, as she then was sitting at the Accra Circuit court and reserved our reasons. We now give them. The facts giving rise to this action are simple and devoid of any complex legal issues. Not unsurprisingly, the evidence led on both sides is equally straightforward and brief. It is therefore surprising that this appeal is based not only on five main grounds but raises also very many issues of law, some of which were never raised at the trial.
The facts which led to the commencement of these proceedings are that by a letter dated 19th June, 1992, the respondent corporation wrote to the appellant, terminating his appointment with the respondent. The letter indicated the grounds upon which the termination was based. It was alleged that, in answering a query sent to him he had “used unacceptable language in his replace to both the Regional Manager and Head of Personnel. Such conduct it was pointed out was "in contravention of the laid down procedure and regulations of the Trust" But, because the sanction imposed on him was a termination and not a summary dismissal, the respondent paid him all his just entitlements made up of his:
(1) The balance of his enhanced provident fund.
(2) Balance on Savings account,
(3) A long service award of ¢20.000.00
(4) Three (3) months Salary in lieu of notice. This of course was subject to whatever moneys he owed the trust and or other institutions, the Social Security Bank Ltd included.
Not in the least satisfied with this turn of events, he sued the respondents:
(a) a declaration that the termination was a nullity.
(b) Reinstatement or in the alternative damages for wrongful dismissal.
By the paragraph of his statement of claim, he complains that the termination was not only wrongful but incompetent and a complete nullity. The following were set out as the particulars.
First, that "as an officer Grade I the plaintiff cannot be terminated under Article 1 Sub-Section 7(a) of the defendants rules of service which does not apply to him.
Secondly, that the disciplinary Committee which investigated his conduct was not properly constituted and was in contravention of the laid-down procedure and regulations of the Trust in so far as two junior members of staff were made to sit on the committee and the termination letter was not signed by the General Manager (Administration), the officer authorised to do so under the regulations