PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, AGOGO v. BOATENG

The subject matter of the action that gave birth to this appeal is simple and it did not involve any difficult questions of fact and of law. The plaintiff-respondent (to be described hereinafter as the plaintiff) sued out a writ at the Circuit Court, Juaso and claimed: (a) damages for wrongful dismissal; and (b) an order of perpetual injunction restraining the hospital authorities, their servants, agents and workmen from forcibly removing the plaintiff's personal belongings from the nurses' quarters.

Until the date of her dismissal, the plaintiff was employed by the appellants (hereafter called the defendants) as a senior nurse-midwife. On the night of 17 January 1981 the scene was set for a calamity in the defendants' hospital. The plaintiff was on night duty, assisted by a nurse, the first defendant witness, when at about 9 p.m. a pregnant woman called Abiba Busanga, the second defendant witness, came there to deliver. The first defendant witness carried out the preliminary [p.383] preparations in anticipation of her delivery and put her to bed. The second defendant witness felt like visiting the toilet and got out of bed for that purpose. She felt it was rather the baby which was descending and she called the plaintiff for assistance but the plaintiff told her that her time was not due. As she was plodding towards her bed, she delivered the baby onto the floor and called once again for the plaintiff's help. The plaintiff and the first defendant witness rushed to the scene. Instead of the necessary sympathetic and professional assistance requested of her, the plaintiff abused her and followed this with slaps. The plaintiff cut the umbilical cord and left the baby in the pool of blood and fluid until the first defendant witness took charge of the baby. Apparently still bereft of any touch of humane feeling, she ordered the patient to wipe off the blood and remove the placenta from the floor. The trial judge found these facts as proved.

Following this incident the plaintiff was invited the following Monday, 19 January 1981, to the matron's office and interrogated. The trial judge also accepted as proved that the plaintiff here behaved insultingly to the authorities. The defendants followed with a query that same day and she failed to answer it. The trial judge considered that her refusal to answer the query was deliberate and that, in all the circumstances, her conduct "was to show naked defiance to the authorities." The end result of all these was the