IRENE TETTEY-ENYO vs. ELECTRICITY COMPANY GH. LTD. [2022]DLSC11699

Date	2022-06-29
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/44/2021
Citation No.	[2022]DLSC11699

PWAMANG JSC (PRESIDING)

DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC

PROF. KOTEY JSC

TORKORNOO (MRS.) JSC

AMADU JSC

F. PAA KWESI ABAIDOO ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT.

JEMIMA IRRIE ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.

[2022]DLSC11699
																																						<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" >IRENE TETTEY-ENYO<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ELECTRICITY COMPANY GH. LTD.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME 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;">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;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">CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/44/2021&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: 29TH JUNE, 2022<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>F. PAA KWESI
ABAIDOO ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/<o:p></o:p>RESPONDENT.<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;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JEMIMA
IRRIE ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>PWAMANG JSC
(PRESIDING), DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC, PROF. KOTEY JSC, TORKORNOO (MRS.) JSC, AMADU
JSC<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="MsoNoSpacing" 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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;TORKORNOO JSC:-<o:p></o:p>The points of contention in this suit that has
reached up to the second appellate court are<o:p></o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
whether or not
the dismissal of the Plaintiff from the employment of the defendant for being
filmed receiving money from a third person was wrongful or not. <o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
if the dismissal
was wrongful, whether or not an order for damages for the said wrongful
dismissal, as well as an order for the reinstatement of her employment granted
by the high court, and affirmed by the court of appeal, are supported by law. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Background<o:p></o:p>Until April 2012, the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent
(Plaintiff) was employed by the Defendant/Appellant/Appellant (Defendant) as a
Senior Customer Relations Assistant at the defendant’s Afienya office. The
grounds for the dismissal of Plaintiff from the employment of Defendant rested on
the provision found in Appendix ‘C’. A.
ix of defendant’s Collective
Agreement with the Public Utility Workers’ Union in the words ‘Any offence or act deemed to bring the
company’s name into disrepute’. This condition is repeated in Appendix ‘A’. A. ix of the defendant’s Manual of Staff Regulations and Conditions
of Service for Senior Staff<o:p></o:p>A well- known investigative journalist called Anas
Aremeyaw Anas aired a film on national television as part of an alleged
exposition of corruption in the defendant company. Part of the film included
the image of the Plaintiff receiving a reddish piece of paper during working
hours. The video did not reveal the full body of the one who gave her the item
captured on film.<o:p></o:p>In reaction to this video, the Plaintiff was
summoned to the conference room of the Managing Director of the Defendant
company on 25th January 2012, and made to watch a copy of the video.
Thereafter, the Plaintiff was given a written query. The query first pointed to
the fact that the exposition of malpractices within the defendant company by
staff, including the plaintiff, had brought the defendant’s name into
disrepute. Second, the query raised the fact that plaintiff had been identified
in the video clip collecting money even though she is not a cashier, and third,
the query raised the question why disciplinary action should not be taken
against her for the two earlier reasons stated. <o:p></o:p>In her response, Plaintiff denied that the scene
showed on video depicted the ‘collecting
of money’. She said it showed the ‘receiving
of a reddish substance’ which could have been an ECG folded bill or a one
cedi Ghana note. <o:p></o:p>She asserted that owing to her hectic schedule
that did not allow her to have a lunch break, she often sent various persons to
buy her food and other necessaries of life. She was sure that the image was
derived from one such situation where someone she had sent was returning money
as change to her, or it could also be an ECG bill that she often worked with.<o:p></o:p>