FRANK ODURO (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT) vs. GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS GROUP LIMITED [2015]DLCA4750

FRANK ODURO (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT) vs. GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS GROUP... [2015]DLCA4750

Date	2015-11-03
Suit No.	SUIT NO: H3/593/2015
Citation No.	[2015]DLCA4750

M. AGYEMANG (MRS) JA

ANTHONY NONOO FOR APPLICANT

DR. POKU ADUSEI FOR RESPONDENT

[2015]DLCA4750
																																						<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" >FRANK ODURO <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS GROUP LIMITED <o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL 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: H3/593/2015&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 3RD NOVEMBER, 2015<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;"><o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ANTHONY NONOO FOR
APPLICANT<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">

DR.
POKU ADUSEI FOR RESPONDENT<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">

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

</div>M. AGYEMANG
(MRS) J.A.:-<o:p></o:p>This is a ruling in respect of an application to
stay execution of the judgment of the High Court delivered on 11th
June 2015. The application is supported by an eighteen-paragraph affidavit
sworn to by counsel for the defendant/appellant/applicant (applicant) who
deposed that he had the consent of the applicant to depose to matters within
his knowledge and belief as counsel. <o:p></o:p>The application follows the grant upon terms of a
similar application at the court below. The terms of the said grant were the
following: that fifty percent of the sum due the respondent per the judgment be
paid by the applicant to the respondent and that the remaining fifty percent be
(paid into court and) invested in Government bonds.<o:p></o:p>Dissatisfied with this ruling which per the
applicant amounts to a refusal of their prayer, the present repeat application
has been brought.<o:p></o:p>The matters on which the application is grounded
are the following:<o:p></o:p>The respondent was an employee of the applicant who
held the position of General Manager, Marketing and Public Affairs (now
Director of Marketing) of the applicant. <o:p></o:p>In an investigation involving an alleged breach of
duty following an alleged fraudulent transaction, the respondent was invited to
a disciplinary hearing. Following the findings of the committee set up for this
purpose, the Board of the applicant dismissed the respondent. The respondent as
plaintiff, sued out a writ of summons seeking inter alia, damages for wrongful
dismissal. The trial high court having heard the parties, entered judgment for
the respondent for the recovery of the sum of GHC23,507.27 with interest at the
prevailing bank rate as well as the payment of two years’ net salary in
damages, salaries, allowances, bonuses and other entitlements.<o:p></o:p>It is contended on behalf of the applicant that there
are contentious legal issues that remain to be determined in the appeal before
this court which speak to the success of the appeal. Some of these issues
relate to the fact that although the learned trial judge found that the
respondent was negligent and dishonest, she nevertheless found for respondent
after proclaiming that providence had come to his rescue. Taking issue with this,
learned counsel contends that a judgment of a court must be based on law as
supported by facts and not on ecclesiastical considerations suggested by the
use of the word “providence”.<o:p></o:p>Another such legal issue is the contention that the
judgment of the court below was delivered per
incuriam. In thi</main>