MONICA WOANYA v. DATA LINK UNIVERSITY COLLEGE

J U D G M E N T

AGNES M.A. DORDZIE, JA:-

FACTS:

The appellant herein was an employee of the respondent university college. The appellant worked with the university as its customer service manager until her appointment was terminated on the 5th of February 2010.

She was a student of the university as well, and a beneficiary of bursary the university grants some of its staff to study in the university.

In the course of her employment with the university, the appellant was given a KIA saloon car which she used personally and for her official duties. A few months before the termination of her appointment the respondent was asked to hand over the car to be reassigned to a more senior staff. She resisted this and did not hand over the car. After the appellant was served with the letter terminating her appointment the respondent published on the notice board and classrooms of the university disclaimer notices in respect of her; the university further prevented her from attending lectures as a student of the university. The appellant felt she was not fairly treated by the university and therefore instituted an action against the respondent university in the High Court, Tema.

Her claims as per the Writ of Summons are:

1. A declaration that the termination of her appointment on the 5th of February 2010 is unfair.

2. An order that the plaintiff be paid three years of her net salary as compensation.

3. A declaration that the defendant cannot deny the plaintiff her right in pursuing the BSc Administration course as a student of the defendant university.

4. A declaration that KIA saloon car with registration NO. GT 6102 Z having been given to plaintiff as a reward for immensely contributing to the development of the university, the same cannot be demanded back by the very university.

5. An order that the defendant transfers full title of the named vehicle to plaintiff to complete the reward to her.

6. Damages.

7. Cost.

The defendant/respondent denied the claims as stated above and counter claimed as follows:

1. That the continued possession of the KIA saloon car with the registration number GT 6102 Z by the plaintiff, which vehicle was given her under a hire purchase agreement by the defendant under the defendant’s car loan policy, after the determination of the plaintiff’s employment with the defendant as wrongful.

2. An order by the court for the immediate return of the said vehicle, or the immediate payment of the value of the vehicle to the