SAMUEL DUAH vs. ASHANTI GOLDFIELDS CO. LTD. [2014]DLHC8236

Date	2014-12-18
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CS/641/2002
Citation No.	[2014]DLHC8236

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON

WILLIAM KUSI FOR THE PLAINTIFF

ANTHONY DESEWU FOR THE DEFENDANT-COMPANY

[2014]DLHC8236
																																						<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" >SAMUEL DUAH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ASHANTI GOLDFIELDS CO. LTD.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH
COURT, KUMASI]<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. CS/641/2002&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:
18TH DECEMBER, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>WILLIAM
KUSI FOR THE PLAINTIFF <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">

ANTHONY
DESEWU FOR THE DEFENDANT-COMPANY<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">

HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON<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;line-height:115%;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>The
plaintiff is a former employee of the defendant company, undoubtedly, a
well-known mining company in Ghana. He asserted he was casually engaged by
defendant in 1999, but his employment was confirmed in 2001 and he worked at
the Security Department of the company, attached to the Sansu Branch on night
shift. According to him, he was wrongly accused of having stolen a gold product
from an exhibit left at the Sansu Branch charge office, and in August, 2002, he
was notified by the General Manager of the defendant that he had been dismissed
with effect from 3rd July, 2002 because of the alleged theft which
he averred was a framed up by the surveillance team of the defendant-company. Members
of the team were called as witnesses for the defendant at the trial. A summary
of the events leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff necessitating the
instant action are as follows: On 15th February, 2002, around 10.30p.m.,
plaintiff was on duty at the Sansu Ramp barrier. Around 11 O’clock of the same
night, the surveillance team of defendant-company, led by one Thomas Damilko
Dassah, DW2, intercepted and searched a Land Cruiser pick up with two occupants
that emerged from the underground of the ramp. The other members of the team
were Sgt. Antwi Asiedu (DW1), Sgt. Benjamin Amoah (DW2) and Sgt. Peter Toddy
(DW4). An amber sack containing a substance suspected to be gold quartz was discovered
in the sack. The exhibit and both occupants of the vehicle were handed over to
one Samuel Ocran (DW5) who was then in charge of the Sansu Charge Office. When
DW5 testified he said DW2 and the other members of his team assisted him to place
the suspects in a holding bay in the charge office; that he left the exhibit
handed over to him for safe-keeping under a table in the charge office, whilst
the surveillance team members went back to their duty post. At this time,
plaintiff was on duty at the barrier, a distance of about 20 meters away from
the charge office according to DW5. Around the duty post of plaintiff, a kiosk
is erected to provide shelter for the staff who man the barrier against rain or
sever sunshine or other unfriendly weather. It is alleged plaintiff came to the
charge office after the departure of the surveillance team. According to DW5, at
the time plaintiff entered the charge office he was serving the suspects with
water through an opening to the holding bay. DW5 asserted plaintiff satisfied
his curiosity by taking a look at them through this hole and left. He is said
to have returned to the charge office after about twenty minutes,&nbsp;&nbsp; complained of running stomach and requested
to use a toilet facility in the charge office; that he however pleaded with DW5
to take temporary charge of his duty post whilst he used the toilet. This was necessary
because so many vehicles were passing through the barrier and needed the
presence of security to attend to them.&nbsp;
DW5 said he agreed with the suggestion and left the charge office for
the barrier.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There
is a disagreement at this point between the case of the plaintiff and the
witnesses for the defendant. According to the plaintiff, he suffered a stomach
upset and had the urgent need to free himself. He said when he requested to use
the toile at the charge office, DW5 told him the taps were not running and, for
that reason, the toilet in the charge office could not be used. Plaintiff said
he was compelled to enter a nearby bush which is beyond an area vehicles are
parked and freed himself. In effect, plaintiff’s case is that he did not use
the toilet in the charge office because of lack of water. He however admitted
he pleaded with DW5 and he agreed to man his duty post at the barrier whilst he
was away on what is commonly referred to in local parlance as “free range’.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Be
that as it may, the surveillance team returned to the charge office later on
and asked for the exhibit. When it was produced before them, the members said
it had been tampered with because they believed there was a visible reduction
in the size of the sack. However, DW</main>