LEVER BROTHERS GHANA LTD. vs. ANNAN; LEVER BROTHERS GHANA LTD. v. DANKWA (CONSOLIDATED [1989]DLSC634

LEVER BROTHERS GHANA LTD. vs. ANNAN; LEVER BROTHERS GHANA LTD. v. DANKWA (CONS... [1989]DLSC634

Date	1989-10-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1989]DLSC634

OSEI-HWERE JSC

LAMPTEY JA

ESSIEM JA

T A TAGOE FOR THE APPELLANTS.

KYEI-OWUSU FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1989]DLSC634
																																						<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" >LEVER BROTHERS GHANA LTD.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>ANNAN; LEVER BROTHERS GHANA
LTD. v. DANKWA (CONSOLIDATED)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1989-90] 2 GLR 385<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">

DATE:
25
OCTOBER 1989<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">

T A TAGOE FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

KYEI-OWUSU FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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">

OSEI-HWERE JSC, LAMPTEY AND ESSIEM JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE JSC<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff-respondents in the above consolidated suits will, for ease of
reference, be described hereafter simply as the plaintiffs and the
defendant-appellants as the defendants. The plaintiffs were the employees of
the defendants. On 28 October 1980 they were suspended and by a note dated 12
November 1980 their appointments with the defendants were terminated with
effect from 28 October 1980. They were said to have been dismissed summarily
for their involvement in an alleged fraud case. They sued the defendants in the
High Court, Accra and claimed damages for wrongful dismissal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In their
statement of claim, the plaintiffs averred that on their suspension they were
handed over to the police for further investigation to be conducted into the
alleged fraud. The gravamen of their complaint was that their dismissal was
wrongful since it went contrary to article 34 (c) of the agreement between the
defendants and the Industrial and Commercial Workers Union of the TUC which
covered the plaintiffs. The said article provides that, “where the employer has
referred the matter to the police for investigation the employer shall be bound
by the result of such investigation.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The case
of fraud against the plaintiffs which the defendants pleaded was that on 21
October 1980 the plaintiffs, in concert with other employees of the defendants,
dishonestly paid for and collected for themselves a large quantity of the
defendant’s products which were meant for their customer, Kumasi Brewery Ltd.
These products comprised 30 cartons Omo (large size), 24 cartons Guardian soap
and 12 cartons Rexona soap. The defendants contended that they dismissed the
plaintiffs not under article 34 (c) but rather under article 31 of the said Industrial
and Commercial Workers Union Agreement.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It will
be useful, for a proper appraisal of the appeal, to reproduce the pertinent
provisions in articles 31 and 34 which regulate discipline and suspension
respectively. They are as follows”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>ARTICLE 31-DISCIPLINE<o:p></o:p>In the
event of an employee being found guilty of serious misconduct such as
dishonesty, insubordination, dereliction of duty or other similar offence he or
she shall be dismissed summarily...<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>ARTICLE 34-SUSPENSION<o:p></o:p>(b) Where
an employee is suspected of any offence which warrants investigation the
employer may suspend such employee with half pay depending on the nature of the
case for a period not exceeding 30 days and within this period the employer
shall decide whether to retain or dismiss him.<o:p></o:p>(c) Where
the employer has referred the matter to the police for investigation the
employer shall be bound by the result of such investigation.<o:p></o:p>(d) Where
the suspension lasts beyond 30 days the worker shall be reinstated at the end
of the 30 days without any loss of rights and entitlements.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>