SAMUEL KWABENA OPOKU VS CARANA CORPORATION

EMMANUEL ANKAMAH, JA:

INTRODUCTION:

The Defendant/Appellant by a Notice of Appeal is praying this Court to set aside the judgment of the High Court, Accra (Industrial & Labour Division) dated 7th October 2020 on the following grounds: a. The learned trial Judge erred when he held that a score of 3. 75 amounted to above average.

b. The learned trial Judge erred when he held that the Respondent/Respondent did not underperform under his fixed-term contract.

c. The learned trial Judge erred when he awarded Respondent special damages when no evidence was adduced in support of this.

d. The quantum of general damages awarded in favour of the Respondent/respondent was excessive and harsh.

e. The judgment is against the weight of the evidence.

f. Additional grounds shall be filed upon the receipt of the judgment.

In this opinion, the Plaintiff/Respondent shall be referred to as the Respondent and the Defendant/Appellant shall be referred to as the Appellant.

FACTS THAT CULMINATED IN THIS APPEAL: The Appellant was an American-based corporate entity registered in Ghana as an external company undertaking a project in Ghana known as the USAID-Financing Ghanaian Agricultural Project (“FINGAP”). The Respondent was employed by the Appellant as a Finance Sector Support Unit Manager in 2014. The employment engagement was based on a contract of employment dated 8th September 2014 and was to last till 31st July 2018. The Appellant terminated the Respondent’s contract of employment by a letter dated 5th September 2016 just after two years of engagement stating “deliverables not met following a performance improvement plan”. This was prior to the Appellant conducting a mandatory Performance Appraisal on the Respondent which resulted in a score of 3. 75 out of 5. Subsequent to the Performance Appraisal, the Appellant proceeded to subject the Respondent to a Performance Improvement Plan as a tool to improve on the Respondent’s lagging areas on the job.

The Respondent disputed the reasons given in his termination letter and caused his lawyers to write a letter to the Appellant highlighting the erroneous termination.

According to the Respondent, his employment contract was governed by the terms set out in the contract therein and the employee handbook.

There was no mention of subjecting the Respondent to any Performance Improvement Plan (P. I. P) after undergoing the mandatory annual Performance Appraisal and therefore it was not justified to terminate his employment on