CHARLES KWADWO GYASI vs. MINING BUILDING CONTRACTORS LIMITED [2023]DLSC16106

Date	2023-05-31
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/06/2023
Citation No.	[2023]DLSC16106

LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) (PRESIDING)

AMADU JSC

PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC

KULENDI JSC

ACKAH-YENSU (MS.) JSC

MARGARET MARY ADJEI-TWUM ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

FRANCIS KOFFIE ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

[2023]DLSC16106
																																						<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" >CHARLES KWADWO GYASI<o:p></o:p>

(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>

vs.<o:p></o:p>

<a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a>MINING
BUILDING CONTRACTORS LIMITED<o:p></o:p>

(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>

[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>

CIVIL APPEAL NO.
J4/06/2023&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;DATE: 31ST MAY
2023&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

</div>

COUNSEL <o:p></o:p>

MARGARET MARY ADJEI-TWUM ESQ. FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

FRANCIS KOFFIE ESQ.
FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>

CORAM<o:p></o:p>

<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) (PRESIDING), AMADU JSC, PROF.
MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC, KULENDI JSC, ACKAH-YENSU (MS.) JSC&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>

&nbsp;

AMADU JSC:-<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

INTRODUCTION:<o:p></o:p>

(1)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
My Lords, the key issue
for our decision in this appeal is, which of the two lower courts properly
apprehended and evaluated the facts in issue before applying the law in
arriving at their respective decisions. While the Trial Court in its decision
dismissed the action of the Plaintiff/ Appellant/Respondent on the ground that
it was premature, the Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal held otherwise
and reversed the judgment of the Trial High Court. The Court of Appeal
proceeded to enter judgment for Plaintiff/ Appellant/Respondent in part.&nbsp; Our determination of this appeal therefore,
depends, on our own re-evaluation of the evidence on record within the context
of the facts in issue and the application of the relevant law to the facts and
evidence.<o:p></o:p>

(2)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
BACKGROUND FACTS <o:p></o:p>

The
factual background to this dispute is not uncommon in industrial relations
particularly, between an employer and employee. The
Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent who for ease of reference shall be referred to
simply as the Respondent is a former employee of the
Defendant/Respondent/Appellant, who shall simply be referred to as the Appellant.<o:p></o:p>

(3)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Respondent asserted
that, he had worked as a Jack Hammer Operator with the Appellant since the 18th
of October, 2004 until 31st July 2008 when he was dismissed from
employment. He alleged that, he was dismissed by the Appellant on an allegation
of attempted stealing.<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;