MORGAN AND OTHERS vs. PARKINSON HOWARD LTD [1961]DLHC5421

Date	1961-01-23
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLHC5421

OLLENNU J.

M.T. AFUTU-NARTEY FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE DEFENDANTS

[1961]DLHC5421
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">MORGAN AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">PARKINSON HOWARD LTD<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">[1961] GLR 68&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 23RD JANUARY, 1961.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

M.T.
AFUTU-NARTEY FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>The claim made by the eight plaintiffs against the defendant-
company is in two parts. Firstly, they claim together the sum of £G1,400
damages for loss of income arising from wrongful dismissal; and secondly they
claim £G600 damages for false imprisonment.<o:p></o:p>Although it is not expressly stated, it would appear that the
amount of £G1,400 is claimed as special damages, and the yardstick by which the
court is being asked to assess those damages is the wages which the plaintiffs
would have earned had their employment with the defendant company not been
terminated. But the plaintiffs must first satisfy the court that they have been
wrongfully dismissed before they will be entitled to damages.<o:p></o:p>The facts pleaded by the plaintiffs, upon which the claim for
wrongful dismissal is based, are contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 of their
statement of claim and are as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“1. The defendants, Parkinson Howard and Company Ltd., are
engineers carrying on operations at<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">Tema, in Ghana, and the plaintiffs were the former employees of
the said company. 2. For no lawful justification the plaintiffs were called off
their normal duties on 13th April, 1960, wrongfully dismissed and then turned
over to the police for questioning.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In a claim for wrongful dismissal it is essential that the
plaintiff should prove the terms of his employment and then prove either that
the determination of the employment is in breach of the terms of his agreement,
or that the determination is in contravention of the statutory provisions for
the time being regulating employment. His claim cannot succeed if he fails to
satisfy the court on these points.<o:p></o:p>No evidence was led on behalf of the plaintiffs to prove the terms
of their employment; all the evidence they tendered is that they were employed
by the defendant’s company, two of them for about four years, one for about two
years, the rest for a period which was not stated, and that each of them was
dismissed without notice, or payment of wages in lieu of notice.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The statute which governed employment at all times material to the
case is the Labour Ordinance1(1) Counsel referred to the evidence that some of
the plaintiffs had served the company for about four years, and the evidence
that all the plaintiffs were dismissed without notice or payment of wages in
lieu of notice, and submitted that the dismissal contravened section 45 of the
said Labour Ordinance, and is therefore wrongful.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This submission may apply only to the first and second plaintiffs
who say that they have served the company for about four years, because since
there is no evidence as to the term of their employment it might well be that
the employment of the plaintiffs was upon a contract at will governed by
section 45(1) (c) which says:<o:p></o:p>