SHAFAWU MUSAH v. AVIATION HANDLING SERVICES (GH) LTD

B. ACKAH-YENSU, JA

INTRODUCTION

In this appeal against the judgment of the High Court (Labour Division) dated 27th March, 2018, the Applicant/Appellant (hereinafter to be referred to simply as the “Appellant”) prays that the decision of the Court below be set aside and judgment entered in her favour.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Appellant’s Case

The Appellant’s claim at the trial Court was that she was accused of extorting money from an Arik Air passenger who had excess luggage. Her employer, the Respondent/Respondent (also to be referred to simply as the “Respondent”), claimed that she was induced by the payment of the money to check in the said passenger and her friend together with the excess luggage, contrary to laid down procedures of the Airline and Airport regulations.

The Appellant denied extorting any money as alleged by her employer, the Respondent. It is her case that based on the allegations against her, she was queried, subsequently charged and put before a Disciplinary Committee as required by her contract of employment. At the hearing however, Appellant’s attempt to be represented by her lawyer was rejected, even though she insisted that she had the right under law to be so represented. The Respondent called off the hearing, contending that the Appellant could not attend the disciplinary hearing with her lawyer. Appellant was subsequently invited to appear before the Disciplinary Committee for a second time but the hearing was again called off because she attended with her lawyer. Appellant’s appointment was consequently terminated. She is therefore claiming that the termination of her contract of employment was unlawful and in breach of her constitutional rights.

Respondent’s Case

Respondent, on the other hand, contended that the Appellant was engaged in an unlawful act of extortion and also carried out her duties in a manner that breached their rules of operation and Airport regulations. They therefore had no option but to subject the Appellant to disciplinary proceedings as required by her contract of employment.

When there was disagreement as to whether the Appellant could appear before the Disciplinary Committee with her lawyer or to be represented by a Union member, the Appellant chose to appear before the Committee with her lawyer. Not happy with the stance of the Appellant, the Respondent called off the disciplinary proceedings and terminated the employment of the Appellant.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

As aforesaid, at the close of hearing the