AFETORGBOR vs. GHANA AIRWAYS CORPORATION [1990]DLCA513

Date	1990-03-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1990]DLCA513

OSEI-HWERE JSC

LAMPTEY J.A

ESSIEM JA

G BROWN FOR THE APPELLANT.

DONKOR FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1990]DLCA513
																																						<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" >AFETORGBOR <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>GHANA AIRWAYS CORPORATION <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1989-90]2 GLR 164<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:
30 MARCH 1990<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">

G BROWN 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ESSIEM J.A.<o:p></o:p>The appellant
(hereinafter called the plaintiff) was employed by the defendant-corporation on
11 October 1972. He remained in their employment until he was summarily
dismissed by a letter, exhibit K, dated 22 February 1985. The letter of
dismissal amply explains why he was summarily dismissed. I reproduce the
relevant part of the letter: “Summary Dismissal We refer to your involvement in
the theft of one carton whisky which led to the appointment of a committee of
inquiry to investigate the case further. The committee found your explanation
for taking the whisky very unsatisfactory. It has therefore been decided by the
appointing authority to dismiss you summarily from the employment of the
corporation with effect from 1 December 1981.”<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff thereafter instituted the action herein against the defendants, his
former employers, claiming the following reliefs:<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. A
declaration that his summary dismissal from the employment of the
defendant-corporation is wrongful, unlawful, null and void as having been effected
in violation and utter disregard of the agreed terms and conditions of his
Employment. 2. An order directing his reinstatement in his employment or post
with the defendant -corporation. 3. An order ordering restoration to him of his
benefits, entitlement and other emoluments wrongfully withheld or forfeited
during the period of his suspension and wrongful dismissal.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
following issues were set down for determination by the court below:<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">“(a)
Whether or not the plaintiff’s dismissal from his employment was effected in
accordance with the relevant law, rules, regulations or agreement governing it.<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">&nbsp;(b) Whether or not the said dismissal is null
and void. <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">(c)
Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs he claims or at all. <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">(d) Any
other issues arising on the pleadings.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
are simple. A carton of whisky which had been brought to the Kotoka
International Airport by a DC 9 aircraft got missing. All persons who had
anything to do with the off-loading of that particular flight were questioned
about it and they all denied any knowledge of the whereabouts of the whisky. A
search was conducted and the carton of whisky was found in the Ethiopian
Airlines equipment room. The plaintiff was the person in charge of the place
and had the key to that room. There is evidence that the plaintiff was around
during the off-loading of the plane although he was not supposed to be there.
He does not deny that he kept the whisky in the room where it was discovered.
He gave a number of reasons for his action which reasons were rejected by the
committee of inquiry set up to investigate the matter. The learned trial judge
made a number of findings and concluded his judgment thus:<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">“I accept
the evidence</main>