WILLIAM G.K. THOMPSON vs. TOTAL GHANA LIMITED [2008]DLCA6773

Date	2008-07-31
Suit No.	H1/124/2008
Citation No.	[2008]DLCA6773

QUAYE JA [PRESIDING]

APALOO JA

GYAESAYOR JA

MR. PEASAH BOADU FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT.

MR. HAYIBOR DJABENG FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT.

[2008]DLCA6773
																																						<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" >WILLIAM G.K.
THOMPSON<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>TOTAL GHANA
LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">MR. HAYIBOR DJABENG FOR
THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

QUAYE JA [PRESIDING], APALOO JA, GYAESAYOR
JA<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>QUAYE,
JA <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff/respondent herein claimed in his evidence in the trial court that he
was employed by, and remained in the service of the defendants/appellants for
sixteen years. This allegation of fact did not raise an issue in the eyes of
the appellants. No issue was therefore joined on this allegation. It stands out
however that neither in his writ of summons, the statement of claim, nor in his
evidence before the court below, did the respondent give any indication as to
when exactly his relationship with the appellants as employee started. <o:p></o:p>The
relevant issues pertaining to this appeal dated from a correspondence under
confidential cover, bearing the date of 18th November 2004, by which the
appellants appointed the respondent as Retail Network Development Manager. That
appointment was to take effect from 1st January 2005. (refer to exhibit A). The
employer-employee relationship between the appellants and the respondent
continued, presumably, satisfactorily, until the appellants wrote a letter
dated 1st November 2005 to suspend the respondent from work with effect from
the same date. This letter, suspending the respondent from duty was the
singular event that occasioned the action in the lower court and the subsequent
appeal therefrom. <o:p></o:p>The
letter of suspension itself was very brief. It states as follows: <o:p></o:p>“RE
SUSPENSION FROM DUTY. Due to the ongoing Police investigations relating to
losses at the East Legon Filling Station, for which you have been implicated,
Management hereby suspends you with half pay with effect from 1st November
2005, initially for six (6) months, pending full Investigation into the
matter…” <o:p></o:p>The
respondent’s reaction to the suspension was captured in his statement of claim
which was filed together with the writ of summons on 18th November 2005. I
hereby reproduce excerpts therefrom: <o:p></o:p>“6.
The Plaintiff avers that as categorically stated in the letter under reference,
the purported suspension from duty was in respect of the “ongoing Police
investigations” into alleged losses at the East Legon Total Filling Station. <o:p></o:p>7.
Plaintiff avers that the Legon Police invited him and he gave a statement in
his capacity as one of the officers whose responsibility among others includes
the supervision of the East Legon Total Filling Station. <o:p></o:p>8.
Plaintiff avers that neither the Legon Police made any adverse findings nor
charged him with any offence. <o:p></o:p>9.
The Plaintiff further avers that the Defendant neither confronted him with any
wrong doing, invited him to appear before any administrative committee nor heard
him before the said purported suspension. <o:p></o:p>10.
The Plaintiff avers that as a senior Management staff he is not covered by any
Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Defendant. <o:p></o:p>11.
Plaintiff avers that the said suspension was wrongful and in contravention of
all the principles of fair trial…” <o:p></o:p>On
their part, the appellants responded to the respondent’s claim inter alia, as
follows hereunder: <o:p></o:p>“5.
Paragraph 4 of the Statement of </main>