FRANK ODURO vs. GRAPHIC COMMUNICATION GROUP LTD [2018]DLSC4518

Date	2018-12-12
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/25/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLSC4518

ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC (PRESIDING)

AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC

BENIN JSC

APPAU JSC

PWAMANG JSC

NANA YAA NARTEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.

ANTHONY NAMOO FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.

[2018]DLSC4518
																																						<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>vs.<o:p></o:p>GRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
GROUP 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. J4/25/2018 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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: 12TH DECEMBER, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>NANA YAA NARTEY 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">

ANTHONY
NAMOO FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC
(PRESIDING), AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC, BENIN JSC, APPAU JSC, AND PWAMANG JSC<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>BENIN,
JSC:- <o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant, hereinafter called the Plaintiff, was in the
employment of the Defendant/appellant/respondent, hereinafter called the
Defendant, from October 2005 until his appointment was terminated by letter on
or about 4th April 2013. The reasons assigned in the letter of dismissal were
negligence of duty and causing financial loss to the Defendant. The dismissal
letter further surcharged the Plaintiff and one other named person with the
amount of GH₵41,195.66
which was said to have been lost to the Defendant as a result of Plaintiff's
alleged negligence. Not only was the Plaintiff denied all his benefits, the
Defendant went further to deduct the sum of GH₵23,507.27 from his provident fund contributions to
defray part of the sum alleged to have been lost to the Defendant. The
Plaintiff maintained his innocence of all allegations made against him by the
Defendant.&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>The whole matter arose from some adverts placed by
or on behalf of the Electoral Commission (EC) in the Daily Graphic. The bone of
contention was whether the adverts were placed directly by the EC or through a
third party, a company called Driwald Advertising Agency; Driwald, for short.
The case set up by the Plaintiff at the trial was that the adverts were placed
by Driwald on behalf of the EC, for which reason it was entitled to a 10%
discount, being a registered agent of the defendant. So he, as the Manager in
charge, granted the discount to Driwald. This was contrary to the position
taken by the Defendant which maintained that the adverts were placed directly
by the EC so the Defendant was negligent in performing his duty and had thereby
caused financial loss to the Defendant. Following investigations by a committee
set up by the Board of Directors of the Defendant, the Plaintiff's appointment
was terminated with loss of benefits as earlier mentioned.<o:p></o:p>The Plaintiff therefore instituted an action at
the High Court and claimed these reliefs:<o:p></o:p>a. General damages for wrongful dismissal.<o:p></o:p>b. An order that the Plaintiff be re-instated.<o:p></o:p>c. An order that the Plaintiff be paid all
salaries, allowances, bonuses and any other entitlements unpaid from the date
of the purported dismissal of Plaintiff up to and inclusive of the date of
re-instatement.<o:p></o:p>d. An order directed at the Defendant to refund to
the Plaintiff the amount of GH₵23,507.27
which the Defendant unlawfully deducted from the Plaintiff's provident fund
contribution.<o:p></o:p>e. Interest on all sums of money at the commercial
bank lending rate from the date of the purported dismissal to the date of
re-instatement.<o:p></o:p>f. Costs.<o:p></o:p>