BERNARD A. ALLOTEY vs ELECTRICITY COMPANY LTD. [2023]DLSC16085

Date	2023-07-05
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/19/2022
Citation No.	[2023]DLSC16085

LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC (PRESIDING)

PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC.

KULENDI JSC.

ACKAH-YENSU (MS.) JSC.

ASIEDU JSC

VICTOR KWESI OPEKU ESQ.

JEMIMA IRRE ARYERE ESQ.

[2023]DLSC16085
																																						<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" >BERNARD A. ALLOTEY<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ELECTRICITY COMPANY LTD.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&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;&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; <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;">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/19/2022&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 5TH JULY, 2023<o:p></o:p>

JEMIMA IRRE
ARYERE ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>

&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;
JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC:-<o:p></o:p>This is an appeal against the judgment of the
Court of Appeal dated 9th December 2021 which dismissed appellant’s appeal and
granted respondent his reliefs. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Facts and Background<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff/respondent/respondent ((hereinafter
referred to as ‘respondent’) was an employee of defendant/appellant/appellant-company
(hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’ or ‘appellant-company’ as the context
allows) from October 2003 as Assistant Programmer and Systems Operator. He was
promoted IT officer and then to Senior Programmer in October 2010. At the time
of his separation from appellant-company he was the Regional I T Officer for
Tema Operational Region of appellant company.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Upon the adoption of a system of prepaid metering
by the appellant-company, the company devised a system for vending electricity
credits for prepaid meters in May 2013. This system involved electricity
vendors purchasing electricity credits in quotas for onward sale to customers,
and came to be known as ‘quota systems’.<o:p></o:p>Not too long after the system was introduced the
appellant-company began to receive complaints from a number of its vendors
regarding unexplained shortages and deductions in their quota balances on
various occasions. The company had difficulty identifying the source of these
shortages in quotas, until the occurrence of an incident on 12th
September, 2013, which opened a lid on things. On that day, the respondent,
then an IT Officer at the Tema Regional office, without authorization, made a
sale of electricity credit of GH¢4,000 to one customer who had purchased credit
from a vending station, Optiplus Vending Station (hereinafter referred to as
‘Optiplus’), but which credit could not be uploaded to the customer’s metering
system. He gained access to the vending system by entering a cashier’s cage at
the ECG regional office, and using the office computers, remotely logged into
the private vendor’s account with the vendor’s password. The effect of this
action, dubbed ‘cross-vending’, was to cause a reduction in the quota of
Optiplus, which did not receive the money, as it had already been paid to the
Tema Regional Office. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;When called upon to explain himself, the
respondent’s explanation was that on 12th September, 2013, while on
duty, he was called upon as the IT officer to assist a vendor, Optiplus, to
complete the sale of credit purchased by a customer. The customer had made a
purchase of credit from Optiplus, but the transfer from Optiplus onto the
client’s meter could not be effected because the appellant-company’s internet
network system was not in working order. The respondent managed to effect the
transfer onto the customer’s meter, by entering a cashier’s cage and then using
computers in the office belonging to the appellant company. With a password
supplied by Optiplus, he logged into the account of Optiplus to effect the
transfer to the customer. This practice, known as “cross-vending”, was
prohibited by appellant company, and rendering this kind of assistance to
vendors was not within the remit of respondent’s duties as IT Officer. He did
not make a report of this incident to any of his superiors.<o:p></o:p>