ARKORFUL vs. STATE FISHING CORPORATION [1987]DLHC2065

Date	1987-10-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1987]DLHC2065

OSEI-HWERE JA

B B AMOO-GOTTFRIED FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

AYISI FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1987]DLHC2065
																																						<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:#00B0F0">ARKORFUL<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:#00B0F0">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:#00B0F0">STATE FISHING CORPORATION<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1991] 2 GLR 348<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="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 27
OCTOBER 1987<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>B B AMOO-GOTTFRIED FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

AYISI FOR THE DEFENDANTS.
<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE J.A.<o:p></o:p>Until the defendants wrote to dismiss the plaintiff summarily,
retrospective to 30 September 1976, the plaintiff was employed as the deputy
chief security officer (investigations) of the defendant-corporation. His
letter of dismissal alleged that he had allowed himself to be influenced by
monetary gains when he was assigned to investigate a fish deal involving the
theft of 50 cartons of fish by both a customer and an employee of the
corporation. Aggrieved by his dismissal, the plaintiff brought this action and,
by his amended writ, he claims for:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.25in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
a declaration that his
purported dismissal is wrongful; and<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;margin-left:.25in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
¢2,000,000 (two million cedis)
as (a) damages for wrongful dismissal; (b) the estimated current value (at the
date of judgment) of salaries from 1 October 1976 to date of judgment; (c) damages
for loss of employment; and (d) exemplary damages.<o:p></o:p>It all began this way: In the afternoon of 24 March 1976 the
defendants’ marketing manager alerted security of fish selling activities on
the premises of Ocean Fisheries. The plaintiff dashed to the scene with his
assistant (the first plaintiff witness) to investigate. At the scene, they
discovered a stack of 115 cartons of fish which one of the corporation’s
customers, a Mary Boateng, came to claim. The plaintiff asked for the covering
vouchers and she produced three of which one for 50 cartons bore her name and
the two for 50 cartons and fifteen cartons each bore other names. At the scene
also were the two security officers who supervised the supply of the fish. They
pleaded with him that as she was not found selling the fish, he should not
impound them. He gave the vouchers to his assistant with instructions to
release the fish if satisfied with the vouchers. No suspicion was raised at
that moment about the vouchers and they released the fish to Mary Boateng.<o:p></o:p>Then on the next day, 25 March 1976, something dramatic happened.
The plaintiff’s assistant, Kenneth Ashong, the second plaintiff witness, was
about to submit his report on the fish impounded and released when he found
that the name on one of the vouchers was not clear. He went to the sales
section to check on the name. It was there that he detected that that
particular voucher had been used twice to collect fish. The plaintiff summoned
Mary Boateng to his office and inquired whether she owned a retail shop and she
said she did. As part of his investigations he went away with her to verify.
Just before they entered Teshie she confessed that she owned no retail shop but
smoking kilns. She then played some tricks with him and attempted to bribe him
and he warned her off. They ended at Mary Boateng’s house where he reported her
unlawful deals at the corporation to her husband. When he was leaving them Mary
Boateng joined her husband to say good-bye to him and on reaching home he found
a ¢20 note on the floor of his car where she had sat. When he got to work the
following day he handed the ¢20 note to the second plaintiff witness and told
him that Mary Boateng might have dropped it in his car and so it should be
returned to her when she called. Mary Boateng called at the office that morning
and, in his presence, the second plaintiff witness handed the ¢20 to her which
she collected without a word.<o:p></o:p>Meanwhile, the plaintiff and his assistant continued their
investigation and on 12 April 1976 they concluded that the fish (50 cartons)
was stolen by Mary Boateng. He made a written report to their managing director
through the chief security officer. He later confronted Mary Boateng who
confessed that she conspired with two others, security assistant Asare and
tally clerk Kyeremateng, to steal the 50 cartons of fish. She promised to pay
for the stolen fish and his assistant wrote down ¢816 as the value of the fish
which she signed and gave an undertaking to pay the amount.<o:p></o:p>Following the plaintiff’s report, a disciplinary committee was set
up to investigate the theft of the 50 cartons of fish. The committee sat for
the first time on 24 June 1976 and present, am</main>