WILLIAM APPIAH & 24 ORS vs. COCOA MARKETING COMPANY [2013]DLCA8077

Date	2013-03-21
Suit No.	SUIT NO.H1/43/12
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA8077

MARFUL-SAU J.A. (PRESIDING)

ADJEI J.A.

ACKAH-YENSU J.A.

JOHANNES VEGBA ESQ FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANTS PRESENT

J.K.M ASEMPAH ESQ FOR THE PLAINTIFF /RESPONDENT

[2013]DLCA8077
																																						<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 APPIAH &amp; 24 ORS<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>COCOA MARKETING COMPANY<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL,
CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO.H1/43/12&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; &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: 21ST
MARCH, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JOHANNES
VEGBA ESQ FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANTS PRESENT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

J.K.M
ASEMPAH ESQ FOR THE PLAINTIFF /RESPONDENT<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MARFUL-SAU
J.A. (PRESIDING), ADJEI J.A., ACKAH-YENSU J.A.<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>DENNIS
ADJEI, J.A.:<o:p></o:p>The plaintiffs/respondents
who were former employees of the defendants/appellants had their appointments
terminated by the defendants. The plaintiffs perceived the basis for the
termination of their appointments as unfair and therefore sued the defendant in
the High Court Sekondi to challenge same. The plaintiffs sought for several
reliefs including libel against the defendant. The basis for the libel was that
the reason offered by the employers for the termination was defamatory of the
plaintiffs. On 15th December, 2011 trial High Court gave judgment in
favour of the plaintiffs and held that their termination was unfair.&nbsp; The trial court also dismissed the defendants’
counterclaim which sought to recover the value of the cocoa beans which got
missing in the defendant warehouses and the total money paid by the defendant to
the buyers for short weights recorded at the destination points. The four (4)
grounds of appeal filed by the defendant are as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
judgment was against the weight of the evidence<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The judge&nbsp; &nbsp;misdirected
himself when he found that there was a system failure when there was none.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The judge
erred in law when he held that there was no fair reason for the termination of
the appointments of the plaintiffs and<o:p></o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The judge
misdirected himself holding that the appointments of the plaintiffs were
wrongfully terminated”.<o:p></o:p>I
will discuss grounds 1,2 ,3 and 4 of the appeal together. By the omnibus
ground, the defendants are alleging that the evidence on record was not
properly considered and has therefore occasioned injustice and if the evidence
is properly considered, the judgment will tilt in its favour. In the case of Djin vs. Musah Baako[2007-2008]1 SCGLR 686,
the Supreme Court expatiated what is meant by the omnibus grounds of appeal.
The appellant is inviting this court to review the entire record of appeal to
ascertain whether or not the evidence adduced before the trial court was
properly considered. This court will therefore review the evidence on record and
satisfy itself as to whether the decision of the trial High Court was right or
not. The trial High Court judge in his findings concluded that the termination
of the plaintiff appointment was unfair and therefore awarded damages to
compensate the plaintiffs. The defendant has argued that the termination of the
plaintiffs’ employment was fair and the decision by the trial High Court Judge was
not supported by the evidence on record. The legal position on termination of
employment is that the employer does not need to assign any reason to the
employee but the termination should be in accord with the terms of the contract
between them. A termination was said to be wrongful where one of the parties terminates
the contract of employment contrary to the terms stated therein. The above
common law positionwas discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bannerman-Menson vs. Ghana Employers
Association [1996-97] SCGLR 417. The Court in discussing whether an
employer or employee is duty bound to give reasons for termination of employment
held at pages 422 and 423 thus:<o:p></o:p>“…the
appellant could terminate the appointment by giving his employers six months
notice if he decided to, without giving any reasons. So were the respondents
entitled to dispense with the appellant’s services by giving him six months
notice. This conforms to equitable principles…<o:p></o:p>To me it is of no consequence
if the respondents gave as a reason for the termination of the appellant’s
employment the fact that he had reached t</main>