JOHN TAGOE vs. ACCRA BREWERY LTD. [2015]DLSC3043

Date	2015-03-25
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/47/2014
Citation No.	[2015]DLSC3043

WOOD CJ (PRESIDING)

ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC

DOTSE JSC

BAFFOE BONNIE JSC

BENIN JSC

FRANK G. DONKOR ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT /APPELLANT.

KOFI PEASAH- BOADU ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT RESPONDENT.

[2015]DLSC3043
																																						<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" >JOHN TAGOE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ACCRA
BREWERY LTD.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT,
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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/47/2014&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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: 25TH
MARCH, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>FRANK
G.&nbsp; DONKOR ESQ. FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT /APPELLANT.<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">

KOFI
PEASAH- BOADU ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT 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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

WOOD CJ (PRESIDING), ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC, DOTSE JSC,
BAFFOE BONNIE JSC, BENIN JSC<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">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>BENIN,
JSC:-<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff/respondent/appellant, hereinafter called the appellant, was employed
in the service of the defendant/appellant/respondent, hereinafter called the
respondent, in or about 1971. And for about thirty-six years he remained in the
employment until his appointment was terminated by the respondent in August
2007. The reason for the termination of his appointment was that the appellant
was alleged to have assaulted another member of staff whilst on duty. A
disciplinary committee was set up to investigate the complaint and the
committee concluded that the alleged assault was proven on the evidence placed
before it. The appellant appealed to the disciplinary appeals committee to
reconsider his case. After re-hearing the matter on appeal, the appeals
committee dismissed the appeal. The appeals committee as well as the first
committee both derived their legitimacy from the Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA), tendered as Exhibit D, that was operative between the employees
and the respondent company at all times material to this case. <o:p></o:p>Having exhausted the
internal mechanisms, the appellant approached the High Court with a writ of summons,
subsequently amended, claiming the following relief against the respondent:‘general
damages for wrongful termination of appointment which damages include but not limited
to salary, social security contribution, allowances and entitlement from the
date of termination of employment.’<o:p></o:p>After a hearing, the High
Court upheld the appellant’s claim, having found as a fact that the charge of
assault was not established by the evidence on record. It held the termination
was wrongful and therefore ordered the respondent to pay damages to the
appellant. The respondent appealed against the judgment of the High Court to
the Court of Appeal which upheld the appeal and set aside the judgment and
orders of the High Court. The main reason why the Court of Appeal upset the
High Court’s judgment was that the allegation of assault was proven on the
established facts. Indeed the Court of Appeal was prepared to rest its judgment
after concluding that in its evaluation of the evidence the assault charge was
established. However, it went on to talk about other matters which will be
discussed herein if and when they become relevant to the determination of the
grounds of appeal filed by the appellant in his appeal against the judgment of
the Court of Appeal.<o:p></o:p>The grounds of appeal, as
amended, are:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
judgment of the Appeal Court is against the weight of evidence.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
Appeal Court erred when it equated the prove (sic) in the case of Kusi &amp;
Kusi v. Bonsu (2010)SCGLR 60 at 65 to the prove (sic) of assault in the appeal
pending before it.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
lower court erred when it held that the employment of the appellant was
properly terminated.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the appellant argued grounds 1 and 3 together. We begin with the omnibus
ground that the judgment is against the weight of evidence. A lot of the facts
were undisputed on the pleadings and thus required no further proof. These
were:<o:p></o:p>