IRENE TETTEY-ENYO vs. ELECTRICITY COMPANY OF GHANA LTD. [2023]DLSC15106

Date	2023-04-26
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J7/02/2023
Citation No.	[2023]DLSC15106

PWAMANG JSC (PRESIDING)

OWUSU (MS.) JSC.

LOVELACE-JOHNSOSN (MS.) JSC.

TORKORNOO (MRS.) JSC.

AMADU JSC.

PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC.

ASIEDU JSC.

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

SEYRAM DABIE ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ APPLICANT BEING LED BY JEMIMA IRRE ARYERE ESQ.

[2023]DLSC15106
																																						<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/RESPONDENTRESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ELECTRICITY COMPANY OF GHANA LTD.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

CIVIL MOTION NO. J7/02/2023&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 26TH
APRIL 2023<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>PWAMANG JSC (PRESIDING), OWUSU (MS.) JSC.,
LOVELACE-JOHNSOSN (MS.) JSC., TORKORNOO (MRS.) JSC.,AMADU JSC., PROF.
MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC., ASIEDU 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 0in;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>PWAMANG JSC:-<o:p></o:p>My Lords,
the applicant before us is praying for a review of the decision of the ordinary
bench delivered on 29th June, 2022 on the main ground, that the ordinary bench
inadvertently committed a basic error when they, by implication, upheld that
the applicant is a public service. <o:p></o:p>The
respondent sued the applicant in the High Court for wrongful dismissal at
common law and among the reliefs claimed was for an order of reinstatement. The
applicant defended the action by stating that the dismissal of the respondent
was not wrongful and further that, even if it was wrongful, the respondent was
entitled to only damages and not reinstatement since the applicant is not a
public service.<o:p></o:p>In his
judgment, the High Court judge held that the dismissal was wrongful and also
that the applicant is a public service thus, apart from the award of damages,
the applicant was liable to be ordered to reinstate the respondent. The trial
judge relied on article 191 of the Constitution, 1992 which protects a member
of the public services against dismissal without just cause, as well as the
case of G.N.T.C. &amp; Anor v Baiden
[1991] 1 GLR 567. The High Court accordingly ordered that the respondent be
reinstated forthwith and paid all areas of salary. In addition, the High Court
awarded damages to the respondent in the sum equivalent to her 15 months
salary. The applicant appealed against the judgment of the High Court but the
Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety. The applicant further
appealed to the Supreme Court and the ordinary bench allowed the appeal in
part. The ordinary bench upheld the finding that the dismissal of the
respondent was wrongful but disagreed with the awards that were made by the
trial judge and affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The ordinary bench concluded
their judgment as follows;<o:p></o:p>“The appeal against the decision of the Court of
Appeal dated 21st May 2020, which decision upheld the judgment of the High
Court dated 19th November, 2013 is allowed in part. The judgment of the Court
of Appeal affirming all the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff is varied by
setting aside the award of 15 months salary as damages for wrongful dismissal
of the plaintiff. No order is made as to costs.”<o:p></o:p>The view of
the matter that was taken by the ordinary bench was that, by the orders made by
the trial judge for reinstatement of the respondent and payment of all areas of
her salary, she was restored to the position she would have been but for the
wrongful dismissal so she did not suffer any loss. In the circumstances, there
was no justification for the additional award of 15 months salary as general
damages, hence the general damages were set aside.<o:p></o:p>However, in
this review application, the applicant argues that the ordinary bench&nbsp; inadvertently failed to address the aspect of
its case where it argued that it is not a public service and therefore it is
not liable to be ordered to reinstate the respondent. The applicant relies on
the case of Bani v Maersk Ghana Ltd
[2011]2 SCGLR 796. It submits that if the ordinary bench had interpreted
article 190 of the Constitution in relation to the Electricity Corporation of Ghana Decree, 1967 (NLCD 125) and the Statutory Corporations (Conversion to
Companies) Act, 1993 (Act 461), they would have concluded that the
applicant, though a public corporation, was set up by the state as a commercial
venture and therefore not part of the Public Services of Ghana. <o:p></o:p>It is
important to underscore, that in this case, it is common cause between the
parties that if indeed the applicant is not part of the Public Services of
Ghana, th</main>