BOATENG vs. VOLTA ALUMINIUM CO LTD [1986]DLCA896

Date	1986-06-26
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1986]DLCA896

ABBAN JA

OSEI-HWERE JA

AMUA-SEKYI JA

[1986]DLCA896
																																						<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" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

BOATENG <o:p></o:p>

{COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 1 GLR 733<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
26 JUNE 1986<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

KWAKU BAAH FOR THE APPELLANT. <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, OSEI-HWERE AND AMUA-SEKYI JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ABBAN JA<o:p></o:p>On
February 1985 the High Court, Accra delivered a ruling dismissing an
originating summons brought by the appellant, the production supervisor of the
respondent-company (hereinafter called the company). On 18 November 1983, the
company served on the appellant a letter terminating his employment with the
company.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant was not given a month’s notice of termination of his services. He was
rather given a month’s salary in lieu of such notice. The appellant contended
that his employment could lawfully be terminated in that manner only where
there had been a serious misconduct, fraud, dishonesty, or stealing on his
part. Other than that his employment could also be terminated involuntarily for
cause after a month’s notice and there was no option of payment of a month’s salary
in lieu of notice, and since his termination was not in accordance with the
conditions of service agreed between the employees on the one hand and the
company on the other, it was unlawful.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
company held a contrary view. Since this was mainly a question of the correct
interpretation of the terms of the conditions of service, ie the service
agreement, dealing with the termination of employment, the appellant filed an
originating summons for the determination of the following two questions:<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. Whether the appellant’s
appointment as a supervisor of the company could be terminated under the conditions
of service without a month’s prior notice; and<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">2. Whether the company was
entitled under the conditions of service to pay to the appellant a month’s salary
in lieu of notice for termination of the appellant’s employment for cause.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
relevant clauses of the conditions of service which dealt with termination of
employment can be found in exhibit A tendered at the trial. They read 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">“TERMINATION”
“1. Voluntary termination of employment (resignation) shall require a notice of
one calendar month (or four calendar weeks if the notice is not given at
month’s end) by the resigning supervisor with pay up to the date of termination
plus all accrued benefits less any outstanding debts owed by the supervisor to
Valco. Supervisors voluntarily terminating employment without giving Valco one
month’s notice shall in lieu of notice pay the equivalent sum of money. 2.
Involuntary termination of employment for redundancy shall require a notice of
one month to redundant supervisor with pay up to the date of termination plus
all accrued benefits less any outstanding debts owed by the supervisor to
Valco. 3. Involuntary termination of employment for cause shall require a
notice of one month to the terminated supervisor. 4. In cases of serious
misconduct, fraud, dishonesty, stealing and allied offences, the supervisor may
be summarily dismissed without notice.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
learned High Court judge in his ruling concluded as follows:<o:p></o:p>