SAMUEL TEYE OWIREDU vs. DANGBE RURAL BANK [2011]DLHC4307

Date	2011-07-28
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BMISC 686/04
Citation No.	[2011]DLHC4307

KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

MR. CHARLES QUIST FOR THE PLAINTIFF

MR. RAY APPIAH-AMPONSAH FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2011]DLHC4307
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">SAMUEL TEYE
OWIREDU<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>DANGBE RURAL BANK<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (INDUSTRIAL/LABOUR DIVISION),
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">

SUIT NO.
BMISC 686/04&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 28TH
JULY,
2011 <o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MR. CHARLES
QUIST 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">

MR. RAY APPIAH-AMPONSAH FOR THE DEFENDANT <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 1.0pt 0in">

KWABENA
ASUMAN-ADU, JUSTICE
OF THE HIGH COURT<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">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>Plaintiff started this action against the Defendant
on 14th May, 2004 by filing a writ of summons accompanied by a
statement of claim. Pursuant to this Court’s order he filed an amended writ and
a statement of claim on 23rd June, 2009 claiming as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 0.5in; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; border: none;">An order that
 the Plaintiff’s summary dismissal per letter dated the 15th day
 of May 2001 was wrongful;<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 0.5in; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; border: none;">Damages for
 wrongful dismissal;<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 0.5in; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; border: none;">Payments of all
 Plaintiff’s accrued and unpaid salaries from 15/5/01 to date of judgment
 including all the contributions Plaintiff had made and was entitled to
 under the Provident Fund;<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 0.5in; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; border: none;">Interest on the
 said amount at current bank rate.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Defendant denied the claim of the Plaintiff in
an amended statement of defence filed on 29th march, 2011.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before amending their pleadings the Plaintiff had
filed summons for directions on 31st August, 2004 and the Defendant
had also filed additional issues on 8th September, 2004. However, on
7th June, 2005 the Court then differently constituted claimed no
additional issue had been filed so it set down only the issues raised in the
summons for directions for trial. The additional issues were, therefore, never
set down for trial. However, in view of issue (f) of the summons for directions
which states that the Court will consider any further or other issues raised by
the pleadings in this suit, the additional issues would have been considered
but from the pleadings and the evidence before the Court the additional issues
are not relevant to the current case. The Court will, therefore, confine itself
to the issues raised by the Plaintiff set down by the Court and any issue that
may arise out of the pleadings.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After close of Defendant’s case parties were asked
by the Court to file their addresses but only the Defendant filed its address.
The Plaintiff filed no address so the Court assumed that the Plaintiff had
waived his right to file an address. Case was as a result adjourned to today
for judgment without Plaintiff’s address.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Brief facts of Plaintiff’s case as stated in his
pleadings and his testimony in Court are as follows: The Defendant was an employee
of the Defendant bank as a Clerk Grade 11. However, sometime in May, 2001 he
was dismissed from the employment of the Defendant bank per a letter date 15th
May, 2001 written by the Secretary to the Board of the Defendant Bank.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According to the Plaintiff the basis for the
termination of his appointment was that he had purportedly admitted before an
investigative committee that he had fraudule</main>