APPIAH AND OTHERS vs. AKERS TRADING COMPANY [1971]DLHC2196

Date	1971-07-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLHC2196

ABBAN J.

J. F. S. HANSON FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

YEBOA AMOA FOR MISS TACHIE-MENSON FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1971]DLHC2196
																																						<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" >APPIAH AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>AKERS TRADING COMPANY<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1972] 1 GLR 28<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
30 JULY 1971.<o:p></o:p>

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

J. F. S. HANSON FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>

YEBOA AMOA FOR MISS TACHIE-MENSON 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 windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ABBAN J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiffs in this action claim from the defendants various sums of money as
damages for wrongful dismissal. The endorsement on the writ of summons reads 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">“The
first, second and third plaintiffs jointly claim from the defendants the sum of
seven thousand two hundred and seventy new cedis eighty-eight new pesewas
(N›7,270.88) for wrongful dismissal from the defendants’ employment; being as
to N›2,590.61 each for the first and second plaintiffs, and N›2,090.27 for the
third plaintiff, these amounts representing general and special damages.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In his
evidence the first plaintiff stated that he was originally employed by the
State Fishing Corporation on 20 February 1963 as a refrigerator mechanic. He
was put on one of the fishing vessels of the corporation, called the M.T.A.
Ada. In February 1969 the defendants took over the management of about seven
fishing vessels of the State Fishing Corporation including the M.T.A. Ada as a
result of an agreement entered into by the defendants with the Government of
Ghana. The plaintiffs and the other members of the crew, who were then manning
the M.T.A. Ada, came under the direct control of the defendants in consequence
of this change of management. The first plaintiff further averred that the
taking over of the said vessel, the M.T.A. Ada, by the defendants did not
affect his conditions of service. He continued to receive the same monthly pay
or wages as if there had been no change of management. However, in July 1969,
the M.T.A. Ada went to sea with the plaintiffs and after its normal fishing
rounds, the vessel made an emergency call at the port of Dakar in order to
repair the radar of the vessel and also to send three of the members of the
crew, who needed medical attention, to the hospital. According to the first
plaintiff, the vessel docked at the harbour at about midnight on 11 July 1969
and those sick persons on board were immediately sent to the hospital. They
were treated and brought back to the vessel. But the next morning, 12 July 1969
at about 11.30 a.m., a doctor came on board to visit the sick men.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After the
doctor had left the vessel the first plaintiff approached the captain for
permission to go ashore “to stretch his legs” by walking around the harbour
area. The captain granted him the said permission. So the first plaintiff went
off the vessel to the shore. He stated that apart from himself, the second and
the third plaintiffs and two other persons, namely, Forson and Otoo, were also
granted permission by the captain to go ashore. The first plaintiff said after
he had roamed for some few minutes, he started to walk back to the vessel, but
when he got to a turning along the harbour street, to his surprise, he found
that the vessel had left the habour and was in mid-stream,. He then noticed
that the second and third plaintiffs as well as the said Forson and Otoo had
also been left behind. Unsuccessful attempts were made in the pilot’s office to
contact the vessel; they could not also get in touch with the Ghana Embassy in
Dakar as the office had then closed for the day. The shipping agents of the
defendants in Dakar gave accommodation to the plaintiffs and the other two
persons. They spent about one week in Dakar before they were repatriated to
Ghana by air. The first plaintiff said on the day after their arrival in Ghana,
that was 22 July 1969, they went to the office of the defendants. In the office
letters of dismissal were handed over to them. The defendants never asked the plaintiffs
to explain their conduct. No opportunity was given to them to explain why they
were not on the vessels at the time the vessel left the port of Dakar.<o:p></o:p>The
evidence of the second plaintiff was mainly a repetition of that of the first
plaintiff. In his evidence the second plaintiff stated that he also obtained
permission from the captain before he went ashore. The second plaintiff
obtained his said permission just about the time the first plaintiff obtained
his. The plaintiffs seemed to have approached the captain individually for the
permission and not in a group. The third plaintiff did not appear in court to
prosecute his cl</main>