Tettey-enyo Vrs Electricity Company Of Ghana Ltd [2022] GHASC 64 (29 June 2022)

Tettey-enyo Vrs Electricity Company Of Ghana Ltd [2022] GHASC 64 (29 June 2022)

The defendant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the plaintiff's conduct brought the company's name into disrepute or constituted misconduct justifying dismissal. The evidence, including the video, was insufficient and not properly authenticated. The plaintiff was denied the opportunity to hear and cross-examine key witnesses, breaching natural justice. Therefore, the dismissal was wrongful. However, the award of damages was set aside as reinstatement was upheld.

Citation
Tettey-enyo Vrs Electricity Company Of Ghana Ltd [2022] GHASC 64 (29 June 2022)
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Irene Tettey-Enyo; Defendant/appellant/appellant: Electricity Company of Ghana Ltd.
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
29 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court (final Appellate Stage)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; wrongful dismissal affirmed; damages set aside; reinstatement upheld.
Legal Topics
Wrongful Dismissal, Natural Justice, Burden of Proof, Reinstatement, Damages, Public Service Employment
Source Language
eng
Employment Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Wrongful Dismissal Natural Justice Burden of Proof Reinstatement Damages +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Irene Tettey-Enyo

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Electricity Company of Ghana Ltd.

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court (final Appellate Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the plaintiff from employment was wrongful
  2. 2 Whether the orders for damages and reinstatement were supported by law

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the plaintiff's conduct brought the company's name into disrepute or constituted misconduct justifying dismissal. The evidence, including the video, was insufficient and not properly authenticated. The plaintiff was denied the opportunity to hear and cross-examine key witnesses, breaching natural justice. Therefore, the dismissal was wrongful. However, the award of damages was set aside as reinstatement was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; wrongful dismissal affirmed; damages set aside; reinstatement upheld.

Orders

  • Order of reinstatement of plaintiff with all benefits from time of dismissal affirmed.
  • Order awarding 15 months' salary as damages set aside.