Samuel Duah v. Ashanti Goldfields Ltd.
May 28, 2019
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- OWUSU, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- DZAMEFE, J.A.
- WELBOURNE, J.A
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Civil Procedure
May 28, 2019
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice Mariama Owusu, J.A., writing for the Ghana Court of Appeal, addressed only the plaintiff’s cross‑appeal after the defendant company’s appeal lapsed for failure to satisfy appeal conditions. The plaintiff, a security officer at the Sansu Branch, had been dismissed in 2002 following a committee inquiry into alleged theft of a gold product. The High Court found the dismissal unlawful and awarded GH¢15,000 in damages plus GH¢5,000 costs. On cross‑appeal, the plaintiff sought enhanced damages and challenged the trial judge’s view that he should have secured alternative employment within twelve months. Applying Ashun v. Accra Brewery, Klah v. Phoenix Insurance, and Hemans v. GNTC, the Court affirmed the duty to mitigate and distinguished KLM v. Farmex as a carriage‑of‑goods case. Concluding that the mitigation statement was correct and the award fair and adequate, the Court dismissed the cross‑appeal, with Dzamefe, J.A., and Welbourne, J.A., concurring.
MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A.
On 18th December, 2014, the High Court, Kumasi, gave judgment for plaintiff against defendant.
In his judgment, the trial Judge held among other things as follows:
“The conduct of Ocran and the team left much to be desired and I am inclined to reason that the action against the plaintiff was orchestrated and arranged to implicate him so as to get rid of him from defendant company. For these reasons I am opined that the Committee that investigated the allegation against him did not appreciate fully the nature of the evidence available to it when it recommended the dismissal of the plaintiff for stealing when evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that he stole the gold product allegedly found in his jacket retrieved from kiosk close to the barrier he manned.
I however agree with counsel for the defendant that the Committee did not breach any of the rules of natural justice as by the evidence of plaintiff, he was given the opportunity to be heard in his case and to cross-examine witnesses who appeared and testified against him.
In these circumstances, I do hold that the dismissal of plaintiff was unlawful. Having declared his dismissal unlawful, I will now turn to the two reliefs he sought. The first was damages for unlawful dismissal and the second had to do with damages for consequential loss, whatever that means…”
The trial court then awarded plaintiff damages as follows:
“considering his other benefits arising from this contract of employment, I hereby award him an enhanced amount of Gh¢15,000.00 as adequate compensation for his unlawful dismissal.
I allow cost of Gh¢5,000.00 for him against the defendant.”
Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, the defendant appealed to this court on the following grounds:
a. The judgment was manifestly against the weight of evidence adduced during the trial of the case.
b. The learned trial Judge failed and or refused to give adequate or any adequate consideration to the case of the defendant.
c. Having found that the defendant observed the rules of natural justice and did not breach same, it was wrong for the learned trial Judge to have entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff whose case was that his purported dismissal was wrongful because the rules of natural justice had not been observed.
d. The cost awarded by the court was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances of the case.
On the 16th March, 2015, the plaintiff failed a cross-appeal on the follow