ADELINE BORTI vs. WISCONSIN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE [2020]DLHC10417

Date	2020-06-12
Suit No.	SUIT. NO: 1225/2018
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC10417

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ELLEN VIVIAN AMOAH

[2020]DLHC10417
																																						<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" >ADELINE BORTI<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>WISCONSIN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SUIT.
NO: 1225/2018&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; DATE: 12TH JUNE 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HER
LADYSHIP JUSTICE ELLEN VIVIAN AMOAH<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;INTRODUCTION:<o:p></o:p>The
judgment in issue was delivered on 28th February, 2017 by Her Worship Maame
Efua Tordimah and can be found on pages 100 to 107 of the Record of
Proceedings. Judgment was given in favour of ………………………………………………………<o:p></o:p>The
Notice of Appeal can be found on pages 24 and 25 of the Record of Appeal. <o:p></o:p>The
grounds of appeal are:<o:p></o:p>a.
The learned District Court judge erred in law in not appreciating and holding
that the contractual Book and Research allowance had been terminated and /or
waived by the Plaintiff and therefore the Plaintiff is estopped from relying on
her contractual entitlement to the same.<o:p></o:p>b.
The Learned Judge failed to appreciate and hold that the new book and research
allowance policy is irrelevant in determining the 3rd issue for determination
being:<o:p></o:p>a.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to her reliefs.<o:p></o:p>c.
The judgment is against the weight of evidence.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;ANALYSIS
OF &nbsp;THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL<o:p></o:p>a.
The learned District Court judge erred in law in not appreciating and holding
that the contractual Book and Research allowance had been terminated and /or
waived by the Plaintiff and therefore the Plaintiff is estopped from relying on
her contractual entitlement to the same.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;We
strenuously submit that this ground of appeal is not only misconceived, same is
meant to confuse the issues. The facts of this case admit of no
complexity and same is captured in the judgment of the District Court and found
on pages 100 to 102 of the Record of Appeal. <o:p></o:p>The plaintiff
was employed by the defendant as a lecturer on 1st September, 2009 (please see
the letter of appointment tendered in evidence and marked Exhibit A and found
on pages 110 and 111 of the Record of Appeal). As part of the terms of the
employment contract, defendant was to pay plaintiff book and research
allowance. The plaintiff worked in the employment of the defendant from the 1st
of September, 2009 till December 2015 when she resigned from the employment of
the Defendant.<o:p></o:p>Is
it true as contained in the ground of appeal that the plaintiff/judgment
creditor/respondent terminated (whatever that means) or waived her right to the
book and research allowance she was due? Respectfully, the answer is no. In
Defendant`s own EXHIBIT 1 captured on page 123 of the record of proceedings,
the plaintiff in a letter dated April 15, 2015 and addressed to the Vice
Chancellor of the defendant wrote and demanded for the payment of her book and
research allowance. This is a letter tendered in evidence by the defendant university.
It therefore baffles the imagination that the same defendant would turn round
and allege that plaintiff is estopped from claiming her book and research
allowance because plaintiff had waived it. The evidence on record rather points
to the contrary. The fact was that the plaintiff in her 6th and final year of
employment with the defendant i.e April 2015 wrote in demand for her book and
research allowance. <o:p></o:p>On
account of defendant`s own evidence on record therefore, we pray this
honourable court to dismiss the 1st ground of appeal as same is without a
scintilla of merit.<o:p></o:p>With
the kind permission of my Lord, I proceed to rebut the 2nd and next ground of
appeal .The next ground of appeal is :<o:p></o:p>b. The Learned Judge failed to
appreciate and hold that the new book and research allowance policy is
irrelevant in determining the 3rd issue for determination being:<o:p></o:p>a. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to
her reliefs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;What
</main>