NICHOLAS K AKOTO vs. GHANA USED CLOTHES DEALERSASSOCIATION [2013]DLHC4378

Date	2013-03-14
Suit No.	SUIT NO. INDL/61/12
Citation No.	[2013]DLHC4378

KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

OFORI ADUSEI ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF

[2013]DLHC4378
																																						<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">NICHOLAS K
AKOTO<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA USED CLOTHES DEALERSASSOCIATION <o:p></o:p>[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. INDL/61/12&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;DATE: 14TH MARCH, 2013<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 1.0pt 0in">

</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>At all material times to this action the Plaintiff
was the secretary to the Defendant Association. He was employed as the
Administrative Secretary of the Defendant Association on 15th day of
February, 2005. He rendered invaluable service to the Defendant Association.
However, on 20th day of August, 2008, without any justification, the
Plaintiff was locked out and was prevented from entering his office. Ever since
that day he has neither been allowed to enter his office nor paid his salaries.
As at the time the Plaintiff was locked out of his office, he was on a salary
of GH¢150.00 per month. The Plaintiff considers the behavior of the Defendant
Association as termination of his employment which to him was unfair and
wrongful. So on 11th May, 2012, the Plaintiff commenced the instant
action against the Defendant Association for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;
A
declaration that the lock out of the Plaintiff was a termination which was
unfair and wrongful.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;
An
order for the payment of Plaintiffs salary from the 20th day of
August, 2008.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
General
damages for wrongful termination.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">(d)&nbsp;
<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Defendant Association was served with the writ
of summons and statement of claim on 16th day of May 2012 through
one Rita Akoto but a search conducted by Plaintiff indicates that as at 25th
July, 2012, the Defendant Association had not entered appearance. A further
search conducted by the Plaintiff on 13th November, showed that the
Defendant Association had still not entered appearance. So on 12th
December, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an ex-parte motion for judgment in default
of appearance which was granted by this court on 18th February, 2013
and case adjourned to 1st March, 2013 for the Plaintiff to lead
evidence in prove of his damages.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In proving his damages the Plaintiff tendered in
evidence his appointment letter which confirmed that he was offered appointment
as Accounts/Administrative Secretary of the Defendant Association with effect
from 15th February, 2005. He went on to tell the court that on 20th
August, 2008 he went to the office and found it locked with an additional
padlock, to which he did not have a key. He as a result went to the office of
the Vice President of the Association with the intention of going to inform him
of it but he was told he had travelled out of the country. He as a result
informed the Treasurer of the Association of it and she told the Plaintiff that
it was the Vice President who had locked it. He waited for the return of the
Vice President and when he went to him, he confirmed that he locked it. In
spite of the fact that the Plaintiff had his personal belongings made up of two
computers and a printer at the office, the Vice President did not open the
office for him until about one and half years time when he opened it that he
should go for the items.<o:p></o:p>