Akpass Vrs Ghana Commercial Bank Ltd. [2021] GHASC 181 (16 July 2021)

Akpass Vrs Ghana Commercial Bank Ltd. [2021] GHASC 181 (16 July 2021)

The majority held that the appellant's dismissal was lawful and fair, as the disciplinary process complied with the CBA and Labour Act, the appellant was given a fair hearing, and the employer's failure to notify the union of the change in sanction could be remedied internally and did not render the dismissal unlawful. The minority (dissent) held that the dismissal was unfair due to failure to notify the union, lack of substantive justification for dismissal over demotion, and procedural unfairness, and ordered reinstatement.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 181
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/appellant: George Akpass; Defendant/respondent/respondent: Ghana Commercial Bank Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
16 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (majority); Dissent would have allowed appeal and ordered reinstatement.
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Wrongful Dismissal, Summary Dismissal, Collective Bargaining Agreement, Fair Hearing, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Labour Law Employment Law Unfair Termination Wrongful Dismissal Summary Dismissal Collective Bargaining Agreement Fair Hearing Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Akpass

Plaintiff/appellant/appellant

Ghana Commercial Bank Ltd.

Defendant/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the appellant was unlawful or unfair under the Collective Bargaining Agreement and Labour Act 651
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was given a fair hearing in the disciplinary process
  3. 3 Whether the employer followed fair procedure in dismissing the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the appellant's dismissal was lawful and fair, as the disciplinary process complied with the CBA and Labour Act, the appellant was given a fair hearing, and the employer's failure to notify the union of the change in sanction could be remedied internally and did not render the dismissal unlawful. The minority (dissent) held that the dismissal was unfair due to failure to notify the union, lack of substantive justification for dismissal over demotion, and procedural unfairness, and ordered reinstatement.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (majority); Dissent would have allowed appeal and ordered reinstatement.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; High Court and Court of Appeal decisions affirmed (majority).
  • Dissent: Appellant to be reinstated with all benefits and entitlements.