COLLINS AMPADU V. THE NEEM TREE LEISURE CENTRE LIMITED
High Court
Labour law – wrongful dismissal – unfair termination – overtime claims – burden of proof – oral contract of employment – whistleblowing – damages. Facts The plaintiffs, employees of the defendant company, were dismissed on 8 November 2013. They claimed that: 1. Their dismissal was wrongful and motivated by their report to the Food and Drugs Authority (FDA) concerning the sale of expired drinks. 2. They had worked overtime (10–13 hours daily) without compensation. 3. They were not given written contracts of employment contrary to the Labour Act. The defendant denied liability, contending that: The plaintiffs were verbally employed and treated in accordance with labour law. No overtime arrears were owed and any extra work was compensated. Plaintiffs were dismissed for incompetence, including mishandling expired drinks. Holding 1. The plaintiffs failed to prove entitlement to overtime allowances. 2. The court found that management instructed plaintiffs to stock expired drinks. 3. It further found that plaintiffs reported the matter to the FDA. 4. The dismissal of all plaintiffs was wrongful and unfair, as it was linked to their complaint. 5. Damages of GH₵18,000 were awarded collectively, plus costs.
NARTEY TOKOLI AND OTHERS V. VOLTA ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. (NO. 2)
Supreme Court
Labour Law – Collective agreement – Redundancy – Variation of terms – Whether employees can waive rights under collective agreement – Whether employer can unilaterally introduce alternative redundancy scheme – Legality of “leave of absence without pay/recall programme (L.O.A.)” – Industrial Relations Act, 1965 (Act 299), ss 3, 5–7, 10. Labour Law – Contract of employment – Termination – Wrongful dismissal – Whether termination in breach of collective agreement is null and void – Right to declaration in addition to damages – Measure of damages. Labour Law – Redundancy procedure – Requirement to notify union and comply with agreed criteria – Necessity to observe procedural safeguards and natural justice. Facts Following a severe drought in 1982, electricity supply to the defendant company (VALCO) was reduced, compelling it to shut down part of its operations and resulting in excess labour. The defendant, together with the local union and a workers’ defence committee, devised a “leave of absence without pay/recall programme” (L.O.A.), under which affected employees were sent home with certain payments and prospects of recall. The plaintiffs (employees) were compulsorily placed on this scheme in batches between 1982 and 1983 without adherence to the redundancy procedure stipulated in the collective agreement between the defendant and the Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU). They brought an action claiming: a) Damages for wrongful dismissal; b) A declaration that the termination was null and void; and c) Arrears of salary and benefits. The High Court held the dismissals wrongful but not void and awarded damages. The Court of Appeal affirmed liability but reduced damages. Both parties appealed. Held (Supreme Court) Allowing the plaintiffs’ appeal in part and dismissing the defendant’s appeal: 1. Rights under a collective agreement (backed by statute) cannot be waived or altered by employees or the employer; any inconsistent arrangement is null and void. 2. The defendant breached the redundancy provisions of the collective agreement by failing to follow the required procedures (such as notifying the union and applying proper criteria) 3. Consequently, the purported termination of the plaintiffs’ employment was not merely wrongful but null and void and of no legal effect.
BERNARD KOJO MENSAH & ANOR V. BILTON BOGOSO GOLD LIMITED
Court of Appeal
Labour Law — Contract of service and contract for services — Test for determining employment relationship — Control test — Ready Mixed Concrete principles — Wrongful dismissal — Termination without reasonable notice — Burden of proof — Failure to prove misconduct. Headnote The plaintiffs/respondents were engaged as night watchmen on the defendant/appellant company’s mining concession. Following a motor accident involving the company’s vehicle, the appellant accused the respondents of negligence and summarily declared them “off-site,” thereby terminating their services. The respondents claimed that they were employees of the appellant and that their dismissal was wrongful. The appellant denied this, contending that the respondents were employees of an independent contractor (Emanet Services) and not its servants. The trial High Court found that the respondents were employees of the appellant under a contract of service and awarded damages for wrongful dismissal. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed, challenging both the finding of an employment relationship and the award of damages. Held (dismissing appeal in part): 1. The respondents were employees of the appellant under a contract of service. 2. Their removal from the site amounted to a summary dismissal. 3. The dismissal was wrongful, having been effected without proof of misconduct and without reasonable notice. 4. The damages awarded by the trial court were excessive and were accordingly reduced.
RALPH AGBALENYO V. GHANA MINE WORKERS UNION OF TUC
Court of Appeal
Labour Law — Contract of Employment — Termination — Compliance with conditions of service — Whether termination unlawful where employer relied on Labour Act instead of contractual terms — Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651), s. 15(e)(iii). Appeal — Grounds of appeal — Requirement of particulars — Argumentative grounds — Whether non-compliance renders grounds incompetent — Court of Appeal Rules, CI 19, r. 8. Facts The appellant was employed by the respondent as an Industrial Relations Officer. Following an investigation into allegations of misconduct, the respondent terminated his appointment by a letter citing section 15(e)(iii) of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651), and paid him one month’s salary in lieu of notice. The appellant brought an action in the High Court contending that the termination was unlawful because it was not carried out in accordance with the applicable conditions of service but rather under the Labour Act. The High Court dismissed the claim. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. Held (dismissing the appeal): 1. On termination of employment: At common law, either party to a contract of employment may terminate the contract for any reason or no reason at all, provided that the terminating party complies strictly with the terms of the contract, particularly as to notice or payment in lieu thereof. 2. On compliance with conditions of service: Where an employer complies with the conditions of service governing termination—such as payment of salary in lieu of notice—the termination is lawful, notwithstanding that the employer may have cited a statutory provision or given reasons which are unnecessary or even erroneous. 3. On effect of stating reasons for termination: An employer is not obliged to assign reasons for terminating a contract of employment. Consequently, the mere fact that the employer grounded the termination on section 15 of the Labour Act, instead of the conditions of service, does not render the termination unlawful once the contractual requirements have been satisfied. 4. On grounds of appeal: Grounds of appeal alleging errors of law must clearly state particulars of such errors and must not be argumentative. Grounds which fail to comply with rule 8 of CI 19 are incompetent and liable to be struck out.
JACKSON K. ANKOMAH & ORS V. ALL NATION UNIVERSITY
Court of Appeal
Labour Law — Employment — Dismissal — Summary Dismissal — Disciplinary Proceedings — Fair Hearing — Waiver — Wrongful Dismissal — Evidence — Burden and Standard of Proof — Appeal — Judgment Against Weight of Evidence Headnote The plaintiffs, employees of the defendant university, were summarily dismissed following allegations of financial impropriety contained in an external audit report. Prior to their dismissal, they were issued query letters requiring them to respond within 48 hours, but they declined to do so within the stipulated time. The plaintiffs alleged that they had been unlawfully detained and subsequently arrested at the instance of the defendant, and commenced an action in the High Court claiming, inter alia, wrongful dismissal, unlawful arrest, false imprisonment, and damages. They also sought an order of certiorari by writ. The High Court dismissed all their claims. On appeal, the plaintiffs contended that the judgment was against the weight of evidence and that they had been denied a fair hearing. HOLDING: 1. Fair Hearing and Waiver Where an employee is given an opportunity to respond to allegations (e.g., through a query letter) but fails or refuses to do so within the stipulated time, the employee is deemed to have waived the right to be heard. There is no breach of the rule of natural justice in such circumstances. 2. Justification for Summary Dismissal An employer is justified in relying on adverse findings (such as an audit report) where employees fail to respond to queries concerning those findings. Summary dismissal is proper where misconduct is established and the employee declines to offer an explanation. 3. Wrongful Dismissal – Burden of Proof A plaintiff alleging wrongful dismissal must prove that the employer breached a specific contractual term or statutory provision governing the employment. Failure to do so is fatal to the claim. 4. Unlawful Arrest and False Imprisonment Claims for unlawful arrest and detention must be proved on a balance of probabilities. Failure to call material witnesses (such as the police) and inconsistencies in evidence may result in failure to discharge this burden. 5. Wrong Procedure in Instituting Action Where the law prescribes a specific procedure (e.g., judicial review applications for certiorari), failure to comply renders the action incompetent and void. Such defects are not mere irregularities and cannot be cured. 6. Judgment Against Weight of Evidence An appellant alleging that a judgment is against the weight of evidence bears the burden of demonstrating clear errors in evaluation or omission of material evidence affecting the outcome.
OWUSU-AFRIYIE v. STATE HOTELS CORPORATION
High Court
Labour Law — Master and servant—Contract of employment—Failing to report for duty—Right conferred on employer by employee's absence from work—Whether mere absence terminates contract of employment —Statutory corporation—Contract of service controlled by legislation— Right to terminate—Power of dismissal vested by legislation in board of directors only—Power exercised by managing director—Whether dismissal lawful—Instrument of Incorporation of the State Hotels Corporation, 1965 (L.I. 403), Part VII, para. 6 —Unfair practices—Re-instatement and fulfilment of contract— —Legislation governing reinstatement of employees contrary to decided cases—Attitude of court in the circumstances—Industrial Relations Act, 1965 (Act 299), s. 32 (2)—Labour Decree, 1967 (N.L.C.D. 157), paras. 36 and 38 (2) — Specific performance—Contract of service— Damages—Quantum — Wrongful dismissal—Claim for unearned salary. Headnote The plaintiff, a catering officer employed by the defendant statutory corporation, was transferred to another hotel as a pastry chef. On reporting, she was instructed instead to work as a sauce cook, which she refused on the ground that it amounted to unfair treatment and diminution in status. Although she continued to report at the workplace, she did not perform the assigned duties. The defendant treated her as having abandoned her post under the conditions of service and removed her name from the payroll. She brought an action for wrongful dismissal, reinstatement, and salary. Held: 1. Failure to report for duty distinguished from refusal to work There is a clear distinction between failure to report for duty and refusal to perform assigned work after reporting. The plaintiff’s conduct in reporting to work but declining to perform duties she considered inappropriate did not constitute absence without permission within the meaning of the conditions of service. 2. Effect of absence without permission Even where an employee is absent for the prescribed period, such absence does not automatically terminate the contract of employment but merely entitles the employer to take steps, including removal from the payroll. 3. Ultra vires dismissal by unauthorized officer Under the Instrument of Incorporation governing the corporation, the power to appoint and dismiss employees was vested in the board of directors. The purported dismissal by the managing director, without authority or delegation, was ultra vires and therefore wrongful. 4. Specific performance in contracts of service In light of the Industrial Relations Act, 1965 (Act 299) and the Labour Decree, 1967 (N.L.C.D. 157), the traditional rule against specific performance of contracts of service is not absolute in Ghana. Courts may order reinstatement where justice demands, particularly in public sector employment. 5. Reinstatement The court has discretion to order reinstatement of an employee wrongfully dismissed, and such relief is especially appropriate where the employer is a statutory corporation. 6. Recovery of salary after wrongful dismissal Although ordinarily an employee cannot recover unearned remuneration, this rule is not absolute. Where the employee is prevented from working by the employer’s wrongful act and is subsequently exonerated, she is entitled to full salary under the terms of service and applicable statutory provisions.
MICHAEL KWAKU OKYERE BAMPO V. VODAFONE GHANA LIMITED
High Court
Labour Law — Contract of employment — Termination on medical grounds — Requirement of certification by medical board — Whether reliance on medical report sufficient — Wrongful termination — Remedies — Reinstatement — Whether court can order — Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651), s. 64 — Damages — Proof of special damage — Burden of proof. Headnote The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant company (successor to Ghana Telecom), was retired on medical grounds after approximately twenty-five years of service based on medical reports from two clinics declaring him unfit for work. The plaintiff challenged the termination as unlawful and wrongful, contending inter alia that the procedure prescribed by the applicable conditions of service and statute—namely certification by a medical board—had not been complied with. He accordingly sought declarations, reinstatement, restoration of salary and benefits, and damages. The evidence showed that the defendant relied solely on a report issued by a medical director and did not subject the plaintiff to examination by a duly constituted medical board as required by the governing terms of employment and relevant statutory provisions. The court held that the requirement of certification by a medical board was a condition precedent to termination on medical grounds. The defendant’s failure to comply with that requirement rendered the termination wrongful and unlawful. However, the court further held that reinstatement was not an appropriate remedy. At common law, contracts of employment are not specifically enforceable, and courts do not ordinarily compel parties to continue an employment relationship. Moreover, section 64 of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651), which provides for reinstatement, applies primarily to the National Labour Commission and not to the courts. The court also held that the plaintiff failed to prove his claim for restoration of salary and benefits, having adduced no sufficient evidence to substantiate the quantum of loss claimed. In the circumstances, the plaintiff was awarded general damages for wrongful termination.
KWAPONG AND OTHERS V. GHANA COCOA MARKETING BOARD AND OTHERS AMOH V. GHANA COCOA MARKETING BOARD AND OTHERS (CONSOLIDATED)
High Court
Labour Law — Public service — Public corporation — Whether employees of Ghana Cocoa Marketing Board are public officers — Dismissal — Compulsory retirement — Redundancy — Whether reorganisation justifies dismissal — Constitutional law — 1979 Constitution, arts. 154, 155 — Security of tenure — Just cause — Commission of enquiry findings — Authority to dismiss — Waiver — Acceptance of benefits — Whether bars claim — Remedies — Reinstatement. Headnote The plaintiffs, senior officers of the Ghana Cocoa Marketing Board, a statutory public corporation, were compulsorily retired following a purported reorganisation exercise based on the findings of the Archer Committee of Enquiry. They were informed that their services had become redundant and were directed to leave office, despite being below the statutory retirement age. The alleged adverse findings against them were subsequently set aside by a special tribunal. The plaintiffs brought an action claiming that their removal was unconstitutional, void, and without just cause. They sought declarations that they remained employees, payment of salaries and entitlements, reinstatement, and an injunction restraining their eviction from official accommodation. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs were lawfully retired due to reorganisation and redundancy and that they had accepted their terminal benefits. Held 1. The Ghana Cocoa Marketing Board was a public corporation, and its employees were members of the public service within the meaning of article 154(1) of the 1979 Constitution. 2. The compulsory retirement of the plaintiffs amounted in substance to a dismissal or removal from office. 3. Under article 155 of the Constitution, a public officer cannot be removed from office except for just cause and by the appropriate constitutional authority; the defendants lacked such authority. 4. Reorganisation is not a ground for dismissal, and the defendants failed to establish a genuine case of redundancy, which requires proof of cessation or diminution of work and fair selection. 5. Acceptance of retirement benefits did not constitute a waiver of constitutional protection against unlawful dismissal. 6. Where a public officer is dismissed in breach of constitutional provisions, the appropriate remedy is not limited to damages; reinstatement may be ordered.
MERCY MENSAH V. MAERSK LINE TEMA
High Court
Labour Law - Workplace Accident - Practice & Procedure – Fraud – Pleading and proof of fraud – Requirement of particulars – Evidence – Burden of proof – Failure to call material witness – Workmen’s Compensation – Assessment of compensation – Jurisdiction – Whether High Court has jurisdiction under PNDCL 187 Headnote The plaintiff, widow of a deceased employee of the defendant company, brought an action for recovery of alleged outstanding workmen’s compensation, interest, and damages for fraud. Her husband died in a workplace accident, following which the defendant made several payments to her based on assessments by the District Labour Officer. The total amount paid was GH¢12,983.70. The plaintiff contended that under section 3(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1987 (PNDCL 187), the compensation should have been calculated as sixty months’ earnings, resulting in a higher sum, leaving an alleged shortfall of GH¢524.10. She further alleged that the defendant fraudulently withheld part of the compensation for several years and was therefore liable in damages and interest. The defendant denied liability, maintaining that all payments were made in accordance with the computations and directions of the District Labour Officer, and that no fraud was committed. Held 1. Jurisdiction – The High Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter since the Workmen’s Compensation Act did not expressly oust its jurisdiction; under Article 140(1) of the 1992 Constitution, the High Court retains original jurisdiction unless expressly excluded. 2. Burden of proof – The burden lay on the plaintiff to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that she was entitled to additional compensation and that the defendant underpaid her. 3. Failure to call material witness – The District Labour Officer, who assessed the compensation, was a material witness. The plaintiff’s failure to call him was fatal to her claim of underpayment. 4. Fraud – Fraud must be distinctly pleaded with full particulars and strictly proved. The plaintiff failed to establish any false representation or dishonest conduct by the defendant; mere delay in payment did not amount to fraud. 5. Interest – The plaintiff failed to prove that the delay in payment was attributable to the defendant; consequently, no award of interest could be made.
MAVIS FIAGBOR V. MAERSK LINE TEMA
Labour law — Workmen’s compensation — Computation of compensation — Whether compensation properly assessed — Role of District Labour Officer — Failure to call material witness — Evidence — Burden of proof — Civil cases — Plaintiff’s duty to establish claim — Shifting burden — Failure to adduce material evidence — Practice and procedure — Fraud — Requirement that fraud be specifically pleaded and particularised — Whether delay in payment amounts to fraud — Interest — Claim for interest on delayed compensation — Whether payable in absence of proof of cause of delay — Jurisdiction — High Court — Whether jurisdiction ousted under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1987 (PNDCL 187) Headnote The plaintiff, widow of a deceased employee of the defendant company, sued for recovery of an alleged shortfall in compensation payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1987 (PNDCL 187) following her husband’s death in a work-related accident. The defendant had paid compensation in two instalments based on assessments by the District Labour Officer. The plaintiff contended that the compensation was underpaid, that the defendant acted fraudulently in withholding part of it, and that she was entitled to interest due to delay in payment. The defendant argued that it paid all sums as directed by the District Labour Officer and denied any fraud. It also challenged the competence of the action and the jurisdiction of the High Court. Held Dismissing the claim: 1. On burden of proof The burden of proof in civil cases lies on the party asserting a claim. The plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish that there was any outstanding balance due her. 2. On failure to call a material witness The District Labour Officer, who computed the compensation and directed payments, was a material witness. The plaintiff’s failure to call him to testify was fatal to her claim of underpayment. 3. On fraud Fraud must be specifically pleaded with particulars and proved by evidence of dishonest misrepresentation. Mere delay in payment or reliance on official computation does not amount to fraud. The plaintiff failed to establish fraud. 4. On jurisdiction The Workmen’s Compensation Act did not expressly oust the jurisdiction of the High Court; therefore, by virtue of Article 140(1) of the 1992 Constitution, the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the action. 5. On claim for interest Interest is not awardable where there is no clear evidence establishing when the money became due or who caused the delay in payment.
TIMOTHY THOMAS KOFI ODOOM V. BCM INTERNATIONAL LTD
Labour Law — Contract of Employment — Termination — Compliance with contractual notice provisions — Workmen’s Compensation — Personal injury arising out of employment — Proof of incapacity — Termination of employment — Medical fitness — Burden of proof — Preponderance of probabilities — Lawful termination — PNDCL 187 Facts The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant company, sustained injuries in a motor accident while travelling in the course of his employment in the defendant’s vehicle driven by a co-employee. He underwent surgery and received medical treatment. While awaiting further medical procedures, his employment was terminated. The plaintiff contended that the termination was unlawful because he had not been certified medically fit and that he was entitled to compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. He also asserted that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. The defendant denied liability, arguing that the plaintiff had been declared medically fit prior to termination, had been paid all entitlements, and that the termination was effected in accordance with the employment contract. The defendant further alleged that the injury was self-inflicted. Held 1. The defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff’s injury was self-inflicted. 2. The plaintiff, having been medically certified fit to resume work without restriction, failed to establish incapacity and was therefore not entitled to compensation under PNDCL 187. 3. The medical report declaring the plaintiff fit constituted the final medical report; hence no further certification was required. 4. The termination of the plaintiff’s employment after the medical certification was not unlawful. 5. The termination was in accordance with the terms of the employment contract, which allowed termination upon notice. 6. The plaintiff’s claims were dismissed.
MAWULI ERIC V. WILKADO CONSTRUCTION WORKS LTD
Labour law — Workmen’s compensation — Employment relationship — Independent contractor — Burden of proof — Failure to attend trial — Workplace injury. The plaintiff, a carpenter, claimed that he was a permanent employee of the defendant company since 2007. He alleged that in July 2012, while working in the course of his employment, he suffered severe injuries from a workplace accident involving the defendant’s machinery. The incident was reported to the Metropolitan Labour Officer, who assessed and awarded compensation of GHS23,053.00 under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The plaintiff brought an action to recover the compensation, interest, and costs, contending that the defendant had failed to pay the assessed sum. The defendant denied that the plaintiff was its employee, asserting instead that he was an independent contractor and therefore not entitled to compensation. The defendant, though served with hearing notice, failed to attend the trial. Issues 1. Whether the plaintiff was an employee (workman) of the defendant. 2. Whether the plaintiff sustained injuries in the course of employment. 3. Whether the plaintiff had been paid the compensation awarded. 4. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the reliefs sought. Held The court entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff and granted all the reliefs sought, including recovery of the compensation, interest, and costs.
STEPHEN DIAB DARKO V. CHIRANO GOLD MINE LTD.
Labour Law — Negligence — Employer’s duty of care — Safe system of work — Defective equipment — Workmen’s Compensation Act (PNDCL 187) — Section 24 — Contributory negligence — Quantum of damages. The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant mining company, sustained burns when an elution strainer exploded at work, releasing hot cyanide and caustic soda. He brought an action in negligence against the defendant for failure to provide a safe system of work and safe equipment. The trial High Court found the defendant 90% liable and the plaintiff 10% contributorily negligent, and awarded damages. The defendant appealed, contending, inter alia, that the claim was governed exclusively by the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1987 (PNDCL 187), and that negligence had not been established. Held, dismissing the appeal: (1) By virtue of section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1987 (PNDCL 187), an employee may maintain an action in negligence against his employer where the injury is caused by the employer’s personal negligence or that of a person for whose act the employer is responsible; accordingly, the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the action. (2) Negligence consists in the omission to do something which a reasonable person would do or doing something which a prudent person would not do; the standard of care is objective and measured by that of a reasonable person. (3) An employer owes a duty to provide safe premises, plant and equipment for employees, and failure to provide or maintain safe equipment constitutes a breach of that duty. (4) On the evidence, the defendant had modified the equipment by introducing mechanical tightening of bolts without replacing them with suitable ones, thereby creating a foreseeable risk of explosion; this failure amounted to a breach of the duty of care and was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. (5) The finding of contributory negligence against the plaintiff was supported by the evidence and rightly assessed. (6) The award of damages was not excessive, having regard to the gravity and permanence of the injuries sustained, and would not be disturbed on appeal.
FELICIA ESSIBUAH VS. BERNARD KOFI ESSIBUAH
The case involved a divorce petition filed by the wife under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367). The parties married under the Marriage Ordinance on 11 June 2011 at ICGC Christ Temple, Accra, and had one child. They lived together in Accra until they separated in 2017. The Petitioner claimed that the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation because of the Respondent’s unreasonable behaviour. She alleged that he became quarrelsome and violent, engaged in an extramarital affair, refused to care for her and the child after childbirth, and denied her companionship. The Respondent denied these allegations and argued that the marriage problems were caused by the Petitioner and her mother, whom he accused of being controlling and disrespectful. He also requested a paternity test and access rights to the child. Although the parties later filed Terms of Settlement, the court was still required by law to determine whether the marriage had truly broken down beyond reconciliation. The court found that the parties had serious disagreements, reconciliation efforts by family members had failed, and the parties had lived apart continuously for about six years. Relying on sections 1(2) and 2(1)(e) and (f) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, the court held that the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation and granted a decree of divorce. The marriage was dissolved and the marriage certificate cancelled.
DAA V. SERWAAH
Labour Law — Workmen’s Compensation — Dependants’ rights — Election of remedies — Common law vs statutory compensation Facts An employee died from injuries sustained in the course of employment. Two dependants—the widow (with a child) and the mother—made separate claims against the employer. The widow pursued compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1963 (Act 174), while the mother elected to sue in negligence at common law. The district magistrate held that the widow’s claim under the Act did not bar the mother’s separate common law action and proceeded to apportion compensation among both dependants. The mother appealed, contending that once a claim was made under the Act, it barred all other proceedings by any dependant. HOLDING 1. The option under the Act is individual to each dependant, not a collective class right. 2. A claim by one dependant under the Act does not bar another dependant from pursuing an independent action at common law. 3. An employer may, in certain circumstances, be liable in both proceedings, provided the claims are brought by different dependants.
EMMANUEL LARBI V. AFRICAN MINING SERVICES
Labour Law — Termination and Dismissal — Distinction between termination and dismissal — Whether termination with salary in lieu of notice amounts to wrongful dismissal — Right of employer to terminate without assigning reasons — Standard of proof in civil cases — Whether trial court may rely on evidence not on record — Effect of admissions in pleadings. The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant company, was interdicted on suspicion of involvement in fraud and theft. While on interdiction, his employment was terminated by a letter giving him one month’s salary in lieu of notice together with his entitlements. The plaintiff commenced an action in the High Court claiming damages for wrongful or unfair dismissal or, alternatively, reinstatement. The trial court entered judgment in his favour. The defendant appealed. Held, allowing the appeal: 1. Termination distinguished from dismissal — Termination of employment in accordance with the contract, by giving notice or salary in lieu, is distinct from dismissal. On the evidence, the plaintiff’s appointment was terminated and not dismissed; consequently, a claim founded on wrongful dismissal was misconceived. 2. Right to terminate employment — An employer may terminate the employment of an employee without assigning any reason, provided the terms of the contract and applicable procedures are complied with; where such compliance is shown, the termination is lawful. 3. Standard of proof in civil cases — The proper standard of proof is on a preponderance of probabilities. The trial judge erred by failing to properly evaluate the evidence in accordance with this standard. 4. Evidence — matters not in evidence — A court is not entitled to rely on or introduce a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) or any material not tendered in evidence; such reliance occasions a miscarriage of justice and vitiates the judgment 5. Pleadings — admissions — A party is bound by admissions in his pleadings and cannot succeed on a case inconsistent with them without supporting evidence.
EDMUND DIAMOND ADDO V. DONEWELL LIFE COMPANY LTD
Labour Law — Contract of employment — Termination — Whether employer entitled to terminate by payment in lieu of notice where contract required written notice — Effect of statutory provisions — Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651), ss. 17, 18(4). The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant insurance company, entered into a fixed-term contract as General Manager. Following restructuring which abolished his position, the defendant terminated his employment and paid him three months’ salary in lieu of notice. The plaintiff contended that the termination was wrongful on the grounds that it was not based on any of the contractual grounds for termination for cause and that the contract required three months’ written notice rather than payment in lieu. He accordingly sought declarations, accrued remuneration, damages and costs. Held: dismissing the claim, that (i) under sections 17 and 18(4) of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651), a contract of employment may be terminated by either giving the requisite notice or paying salary in lieu thereof; (ii) where the terms of an employment contract are inconsistent with statutory provisions regulating employment, the statutory provisions prevail and are implied into the contract; (iii) termination on notice (or by payment in lieu) does not require proof of any of the contractual grounds for termination for cause; and (iv) accordingly, the defendant’s termination of the plaintiff’s employment by payment in lieu of notice was lawful and did not constitute a breach of the contract
1993 Income and Capital Gains Tax Convention and Memorandum of Understanding
The Government of the French Republic and the Government of the Republic of Ghana, desiring to conclude a convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital gains, have agreed as follows:
2005 Income and Capital Gains Tax Convention
CONVENTION BETWEEN THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM AND THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION AND THE PREVENTION OF FISCAL EVASION WITH RESPECT TO TAXES ON INCOME AND ON CAPITAL GAINS
ESTATE DUTY
Year: 1975
The Commissioner responsible for Finance may exempt any person or class of persons from the whole or any part of the estate duty imposed by the Estate Duty Act, 1965 (Act 271) as continued in force by the Estate Duty Act (Repeal) Decree, 1969 (NLCD 405)