KORANTENG VRS MOBILE ZONE LIMITED (E3/3/21) [2023] GHAHC 475 (3 November 2023)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, WESTERN REGION, HELD AT SEKONDI, ON THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023, BEFORE HER LADYSHIP AFIA N. ADU- AMANKWA (MRS.) J. SUIT NO. E3/3/21 FREDERICK KORANTENG PLAINTIFF VRS. MOBILE ZONE LIMITED DEFENDANT JUDGMENT The defendant employed the plaintiff on 10th August 2011 as a technician and thereafter promoted him to warehouse manager in February 2013. Subsequently, he was transferred to Takoradi, where he was promoted as Carl Care Service Centre manager for the Western Region. The Carl Care Service Centre is a Tecno service centre owned and controlled by the defendant. On 4th October 2015, the plaintiff was arrested on charges of stealing and falsification, among other charges and arraigned before the Circuit Court, Takoradi. On 15th January 2019, the Circuit Court struck out the case for want of prosecution and discharged him. It is the plaintiff’s case that after his arrest on 4th October 2015, he was asked to step aside for investigations to be carried out. Prior to his arraignment before the court, he enquired from the defendant’s security coordinator and auditor, who were directly in charge of the case, when he could resume work and when his salaries would be paid. On all those occasions, he was told that management was still considering his issue and would communicate its decision to him in due course, which to date had not been done. He contends that the defendant has failed to pay him his salary arrears and benefits due him and, unless compelled by the court, would not do so, hence the present action against her. By his writ of summons sealed on 11th November 2020, the plaintiff claims against the defendant for: “a) A declaration that the Plaintiff is and has been a bona fide employee of the Defendant since 4th October, 2015 till date; b) Recovery of the Plaintiff’s unpaid salaries from 4th October, 2015 till date of judgment; c) Interest on the said unpaid salaries till date of final payment; d) Recovery of Plaintiff’s Laptop, Seagate External Hard Drive, Samsung Tablet and a Techno M9 Mobile Phone taken from the Plaintiff’s office at the time he was arrested, or in the alternative, recovery of the sum of GHc5,000.00 being the total cost of the said items; e) Costs including legal fees of 15% of all amounts payable by the Defendant; f) Any other equitable relief(s) in the circumstances”. The defendant has denied the plaintiff’s claims for salary arrears contending that there has been a cessation of employment relationship between her and the plaintiff. In her statement of defence, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff stole some of her assets, opened a parallel service shop, and sent her phones to it for repairs. The matter was reported to the police, who, after investigations, arraigned the plaintiff before the court. According to the defendant, in the light of the ridicule and opprobrium associated with his act of malfeasance and theft, the plaintiff ceased coming to work. Upon the pleadings, two issues were raised for determination: i. Whether or not the plaintiff ceased to be an employee of the defendant company from October 2015. ii. Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to his claim. iii. Any other issues arising from the pleadings. BURDEN OF PROOF The burden of proving his claim is foremost on the plaintiff. This duty is imposed on the plaintiff by sections 10(1), 11(1) and 12 (1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). The legal position has been explained in several authorities. In Re Ashalley Botwe Lands, Adjetey Agboso & Ors vrs. Kotey & Ors [2003-04] 1 SCGLR 420, the Supreme Court held that in a civil case, a litigant who was a defendant did not need to prove anything. The plaintiff who had instituted the action bore the burden of proving his case against the defendant. The Supreme Court further held that a determination of an issue or fact which was dependent on the evaluation of facts and evidence could not be made on nothing. Accordingly, a defendant who desired the determination to be made in his favour had the duty to help his cause by adducing facts or evidence before the court that would induce the determination to be made in his favour. To this end, the plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence to prove his claim on a preponderance of probabilities, as defined in section 12(2) of the Evidence Decree, supra. In assessing the balance of probabilities, all the evidence, be it that of the plaintiff or the defendant, must be considered, and the party in whose favour the balance tilts is the person whose case is more probable of the rival versions and would be deserving of a favourable verdict. See Takoradi Flour Mills vrs. Samir Faris [2005-2006] SCGLR 882. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE The plaintiff testified that he had been an employee of the defendant company since 10th August 2011. He was employed by the defendant as a technician and posted to the Circle Branch for about seven (7) months. After that, he was transferred to the Odorkor Branch for about a year, then back to Circle Warehouse as the assistant manager and trainer for about a year. Based on his performance at the Circle Warehouse, he was taken to Kumasi for two months to revamp the business there, which he did to the admiration of management. This led to his transfer to Takoradi as the CarlCare Service Centre Manager for the Western Region in December 2013. He explained that CarlCare Service Center was under the defendant's control. He carried out his duties honourably at the Takoradi CarlCare Centre. Even though management considered closing the centre before his posting to Takoradi, that issue never came up for consideration after he assumed office since the sales shot up astronomically. In an introduction letter dated 10th October 2014, the Head of Human Rights, Administration & Legal described him as a person of good character and very responsible. The plaintiff further testified that on 4th October 2015, without any query, caution, warning or justifiable cause, the defendant, through her internal auditor and security coordinator, caused his arrest on false charges of stealing, falsification, among other charges. He was locked up in his room from about 10 pm till 6 am the following day when they took him to the Odorkor Police Station in Accra, where he was unlawfully detained in cells for three days without access to his family, friends or a lawyer. Whilst in police custody, he was asked to admit the charges levelled against him (including the charge that he had stolen GH¢12,000.00) before being released or granted police inquiry bail. One of his friends, Emmanuel Kwabena Yeboah, who had managed to get information on his whereabouts, requested for the audit report based upon which the defendant was wrongfully subjecting him to such ill-treatment, but same could not be delivered to them. Consequently, he was granted bail. At a meeting held after he was granted bail, he was warned by the defendant’s officials not to go to the company’s residence in Takoradi or the office till investigations were concluded. The meeting was between him and his friend on the one hand and the Head of Human Resource, Administration & Legal, Esther Taiwo, the Internal Auditor Alexander Yaw Sadzi, the Security Coordinator Joseph Kwame Amoah, the Odorkor Head of CID at the time and one Lance Corporal Emmanuel Tei on the other. Upon returning to Takoradi, he had to rely on the benevolence of friends to survive, as he had no access to his residence or personal belongings. It took the intervention of the Circuit Court 'A', Takoradi, four months after he was granted bail in Accra for his personal belongings to be released to him. The plaintiff further recounted that three weeks after the grant of bail, he was directed by officers of the Odorkor Police Station to meet the defendant's internal auditor in Takoradi for a copy of the audit report. Upon reaching there, he noticed that his office had been forcefully opened, and all his documents and other items which he had left there, including sales for July, August and September 2015, had been taken out of the office. Whilst at the office, the internal auditor tried to force him to admit certain charges, failing which he would have him arrested again by the Market Circle Police Station on fresh charges. The audit report, which was nothing other than a printout of all monies received at the Takoradi office of CarlCare Centre from May to September 2015, was eventually released to him in November 2015. Items seized from his official residence and office, none of which had to date been returned to him, included personal documents from some contacts in China, Samsung Laptop 8GB/500GB, Samsung Tab 10.1, Tecno M9 mobile phone, Seagate External HDD 500GB, GHC3,000.00, GHC1,800.00, GHC 500.00, GHC 200.00 and GHC5, 500.00. Contrary to the defendant's allegations that he deliberately avoided her internal auditor when he came to Takoradi to audit his office, the plaintiff explained that when the auditor came to Takoradi, he told him that he was in Takoradi for an assignment which had nothing to do with him. However, he called to ask about his whereabouts around 6 pm while on a bus heading to Accra. Upon his return on Sunday, he was arrested and sent to Accra the next day. Further, the plaintiff denied ever admitting any offence, from when he was locked up in his room to the Odokor Police Station, to the Market Circle Police Station, Western Regional Police Command and finally to the Circuit Court, Takoradi. The plaintiff further testified that on the 13th day of January 2016, the defendant, as the complainant, caused his arraignment before the Circuit Court 'A' at Takoradi on charges of stealing. However, following several adjournments at the prosecution’s instance, the case was struck out for want of prosecution on 15th January 2019 after being in Court for about three years. Consequently, he was discharged by the said court. He contended that after the alleged investigations, the auditor presented an audit report, which only turned out to be a printout of revenue for the Takoradi CarlCare Centre. The allegations against him were all found to be baseless and unnecessary, hence the defendant's inability to prosecute the case to its conclusion. After his arrest in October 2015, he was asked to step aside for investigations to be carried out and thereafter arraigned before the Circuit Court, Takoradi, without any communication regarding the outcome of the defendant's investigations. From October 2015 till date, the defendant had failed, neglected and refused to pay his salaries and entitlements even though his appointment had not been formally terminated. Upon the defendant's incessant failure to pay his salaries and other benefits, he instructed his lawyers, who wrote to the defendant on 26th April 2019, formally demanding his salary arrears. The defendant treated it with contempt and did not even acknowledge receipt of the letter. The defendant's unjustifiable failure, neglect and refusal to pay his salaries and benefits since October 2015 had occasioned great embarrassment and financial hardship as he had had to survive purely on the benevolence of his family and some friends all these years. The defendant testified through her representative, Peter Kwamena Ocran, the manager of her Sunyani branch. He testified that prior to his transfer to Sunyani, he worked as a manager for the company in Takoradi from 2012 to 2016. He said the plaintiff had not worked or reported to work since 2015. The plaintiff was transferred from Accra to the Service Centre in Takoradi. After a while, the company started experiencing dwindling sales at the Carlcare Centre managed by the plaintiff. When he asked the plaintiff about the dwindling sales, he (plaintiff) informed him that his boss had asked him to use the money to rent an office space, which was later found to be false. The defendant found the issue worrisome and interrogated the cause of the low output. The company caused an audit to be conducted, and it came to the fore that sales were being under-declared by the plaintiff. One of the modes employed by the plaintiff was to log on to computers and, with his expertise in information technology, change figures when the company closed and other workers had left the premises. In October 2015, the company sent some personnel to Takoradi to look for the plaintiff after he had absented himself from work for two days to answer some questions on the audit of his tenure as manager. On the night of 4th October 2015, they met him at their duty post and upon exhibiting behaviour that connoted some form of wrongdoing, he was questioned. A search of his bag revealed some company accessories which he could not offer any explanation. The defendant’s representative further testified that the plaintiff started operating a parallel service centre that was always stocked with phone accessories. When he confronted him about his activity bordering on a conflict of interest, he would retort that the place did not belong to him and that he was only helping at the shop. When the plaintiff's deeds caught up with him, he confessed to appropriating company property for his benefit. He denied that the company paid the plaintiff two thousand and fifty Ghana Cedis (GH¢2,050.00) as the plaintiff alleged. He explained that when they were employed, their payment was made to them through the bank; some were paid through Unibank, while others were paid through Prudential Bank. He further testified that whilst in Takoradi, the company always rented accommodation on a two-year basis and gave the said accommodation to them as duty posts. DW1, Joseph Kwame Amoah, the security coordinator of Mobile Zone Limited, testified that the plaintiff was the manager of Carlcare, Takoradi, until he stopped working in 2015. According to him, on the 4th day of October 2015, the CEO instructed him and Corporal Emmanuel Kudjoku to go to Takoradi and bring the plaintiff to Accra to answer some queries on adverse findings that were discovered by the auditor against the plaintiff following their futile efforts to reach him. Upon their arrival in Takoradi en route to Plaintiff's duty post, they met Peter Ocran near the residence, who informed them that the plaintiff had been away for two days. As they conversed, they saw the plaintiff, who seemed surprised at their presence. He testified that the plaintiff was sweating profusely, and when questioned about his whereabouts, he stated that he had gone to Accra to solve some problems. The plaintiff had a bag behind him, and when he was asked about the bag's contents, he stated that it contained his laptop and some personal items. Being suspicious of his behaviour, they inspected the bag, which contained, among others, twenty (20) pieces of assorted Tecno Parts belonging to the defendant company, two (2) laptops, one (1) Tecno P6 phone, one(1) Tecno F7 phone, two (2) Tecno 347 phones. They took possession of the items and came to Accra the following day. They presented the plaintiff to management in the company's conference room. Upon being interrogated by management on the audit that was done, the plaintiff admitted to falsifying sales records and prayed for forgiveness as he did not know what came over him. Subsequently, they took the plaintiff to the Odorkor Police Station, where his statement was taken, and he was cautioned, bailed, and his items returned to him. After investigation, the police arraigned the plaintiff before the Circuit Court, Takoradi, where trial commenced and he testified. The suit was struck out for want of prosecution due to communication problems with the police regarding the date for trial. DW2, Gifty Quarm, the supervisor at Carlcare Takoradi, testified that she had been working at Carlcare since 2012. The plaintiff was her boss at Carlcare until October 2015. She explained that Carlcare served as a service centre for Tecno Phones, offering after- sales service for repairs of Tecno phones. As the plaintiff was their supervisor, they always handed over their daily sales to him for onward transmission to the main office. In 2015, the plaintiff informed them that he was going on leave. After his leave of about a month, he returned to work, and shortly after, personnel from Accra came to the office and informed them that they had come to audit their activities at the Takoradi Centre. They were asked to print their daily sales, and when they did, it was revealed that the figures in the system did not tally. Given that the plaintiff was their supervisor to whom they handed over their daily sales, he was asked to explain why the figures did not tally. They were informed that the plaintiff could not account for some of the daily sales and that sales were not being made to the main office as expected. Subsequently, the plaintiff was taken to the main office in Accra for questioning and later charged. MERITS The main issue for determination is whether the plaintiff is the defendant’s employee. Whereas the plaintiff contends that he remains the defendant’s employee to date, the defendant maintains that the plaintiff ceased working for her in October 2015 when he was arrested on charges of stealing. Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4TH Ed, Vol. 16, page 10, defines an employee as: “An individual who has entered into or works under, or, where the employment has ceased, worked under, a contract of employment”. Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed. Page 602, defines an employee as: “A person who works in the service of another person (the employer) under an express or implied contract of hire, under which the employer has the right to control the details of work performance”. The Labour Act, 2003, Act 651 uses the word “worker” instead of “employee”. It defines a worker as: “A person employed under a contract of employment whether on a continuous, part-time, temporary or casual basis”. The defendant did not challenge the plaintiff's testimony, to the effect that he was employed by the defendant on 10th August 2011 and subsequently transferred to Takoradi to manage the Carl Care Service Centre. Indeed, in the testimony of the defendant’s representative, he confirmed that the plaintiff was transferred from Accra to the Service Centre in Takoradi. Exhibit “A”, a letter of introduction from the defendant company, confirms her employment of the plaintiff since September 2011. Even though it is undisputed that the defendant employed the plaintiff in September 2011, none of the parties tendered any contract of employment entered between them. That notwithstanding, the Labour Act, supra, which applies to all workers except for workers of the Armed Forces, Police Service, Prison Service and the Security and Intelligence Agencies specified under Act 526, applies to the plaintiff. The basis for the defendant’s claims that the plaintiff is not entitled to his salary arrears is that he ceased working for her from the date of his arrest on 4th October 2015. The plaintiff contends otherwise, claiming that he is still an employee, given that his failure to work was due to the instructions from the defendant asking him to stay away from the office until investigations were completed. An employee would cease to be employed by his employer from the date the employment contract is terminated, either expressly or impliedly. It is necessary at this point to distinguish two sets of provisions under the labour law governing the severance of the employer/employee relationship by an employer. First is the termination of the contract, and the other is summary dismissal. These two modes of severance will generally result in the termination of the employee’s contract in the sense that he ceases to be the employer’s employee. Even though these two methods may achieve the same result of terminating the employee’s contract, the consequences of the termination may vary. A summary dismissal does not attract severance benefits from the company, whereas an employee would be entitled to his benefits upon the termination of his contract. The distinction between a dismissal and termination was considered in the Court of Appeal decision of Faustina Asantewaa & 7 Ors. vrs. Registered Trustees of the Catholic Church of Koforidua [2016] 92 GMJ 176, where the court per Dennis Adjei JA stated thus: “…dismissal is where an employee’s appointment has been truncated based on his behaviour…A dismissal is an embarrassment as the employee loses most of his benefits. An employer may terminate the employment of an employee without any reason provided the requisite notice is given or salary in lieu of notice is given”. The Labour Act, supra, is silent on summary dismissal even though it provides for the termination of the employment contract based on proven misconduct, which is tantamount to a summary dismissal under common law. Section 15 of Act 651 provides the grounds by which a contract of employment may be terminated. Section 15 states: “15. Grounds for termination of employment A contract of employment may be terminated, (a) by mutual agreement between the employer and the worker; (b) by the worker on grounds of ill-treatment or sexual harassment; (c) by the employer on the death of the worker before the expiration of the period of employment; (d) by the employer if the worker is found on medical examination to be unfit for employment; (e) by the employer because of the inability of the worker to carry out work due to (i) sickness or accident; or (ii) the incompetence of the worker; or (iii) the proven misconduct of the worker”. Section 17 of the Act deals with notice. It states: “17. Notice of termination of employment: (1) A contract of employment may be terminated at anytime by either party giving to the other party, (a) in the case of a contract of three years or more, one month’s notice or one month’s pay in lieu of notice; (b) in the case of a contract of less than three years, two weeks’ notice or two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice; or (c) in the case of contract from week to week, seven days’ notice. (2) A contract of employment determinable at will by either party may be terminated at the close of any day without notice. (3) A notice required to be given under this section shall be in writing. (4) The day on which the notice is given shall be included in the period of the notice”. By Act 651, a contract of employment may only be terminated on the grounds provided for by section 15 of the Act. It is undisputed that the plaintiff has not worked for the defendant since October 2015, when he was arrested. The plaintiff explains his absence to the fact that the defendant asked him to stay away from the company’s residence and the office until investigations into the matter had been concluded. According to him, the decision to stay away was taken in his presence and that of his friend, the head of Human Resources, Administration and Legal, Esther Taiwo, the Internal auditor, Alexander Yaw Sadzi, the Security Coordinator, Joseph Amoah and the Odorkor head of CID at the time, Lance Corporal Emmanuel Tei. He stayed away until the Circuit Court, Takoradi, discharged him on 15th January 2019. On 26th April 2019, his lawyer wrote to the defendant formally demanding his unpaid salaries and arrears over the period, but the defendant failed to acknowledge receipt of the letter. This evidence was not controverted by the defendant and is deemed as an admission of the fact. It is trite that where the evidence led by a party is not challenged by his opponent in cross-examination, and the opponent does not tender evidence to the contrary, the fact deposed to in the evidence is deemed to have been admitted by the opponent and must be accepted by the trial court. See the case of Takoradi Flour Mills Limited vrs. Samir Faris, supra. By failing to cross- examine the plaintiff, the defendant is deemed to have accepted the plaintiff’s testimony that she asked him to stay away from the office pending investigations. The defendant has not terminated her employment contract with the plaintiff. No evidence was led to show that there had been any form of termination of the employment contract. The defendant said the plaintiff had failed to work for her since October 2015 following his arrest. Certain allegations of impropriety were levelled against the plaintiff, leading to his arrest and investigations by the police. Despite these allegations, the defendant did not terminate the plaintiff’s contract based on these allegations. Under the Labour Act, supra, a worker’s employment contract can be terminated by his employer on grounds of proven misconduct. Thus, where allegations of misconduct have been made against a worker, an employer can terminate the contract only if there is some form of proof of misconduct against the worker. Here, the Circuit Court, Takoradi, discharged the plaintiff for want of prosecution; therefore, the issue of his guilt or otherwise was not determined by the court. There is no evidence showing any internal procedures utilized to determine the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against him. Thus, the defendant cannot be heard to say that she has terminated the contract based on these allegations. It should be noted that under the Labour Act, supra, the right to terminate the employment contract lies with both parties on grounds as enumerated in the Act. A party may decide to forego the termination of the contract even if he has reason to do so under the Act. An employer may give a worker a second chance to remain employed despite evidence of misconduct or some other reason. Thus, until there has been a termination of the employment, either expressly or impliedly, a worker’s employment contract cannot be deemed terminated because he has not worked for his employer, more so when it was the employer who directed that he stayed away from work. As long the defendant has not terminated her employment contract with the plaintiff, the plaintiff is deemed her employee. The plaintiff’s absence from work was due to his compliance with the defendant’s orders to stay away from work pending the investigations and not of his own volition to stay away from work. One of the duties of an employer under the Labour Act, supra, specifically section 9(b) is the employer’s duty to: “…pay the agreed remuneration at the time and place agreed on in the contract of employment or collective agreement or by custom without any deduction except deduction permitted by law or agreed between the employer and the worker”. Until the worker's employment contract is terminated, the employer is obligated to pay the worker the agreed remuneration. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to be paid his salary and benefits under his employment contract from October 2015 to date. Regarding his unpaid salaries and benefits, the plaintiff testified that: “…as the Takoradi manager of the Carl Care Service Centre, I was entitled to the following as of October 2015 as my salary and other benefits every month: a) Basic salary …. GHc670.00 b) Rent allowance …. GHc500.00 c) Allowance …. GHc360.00 d) Transport …. GHc200.00 e) Utilities …. GHc200.00 f) Refreshments …. GHc80.00 g) Credits …. GHc40.00 Total …. GHc2,050.00” The defendant disputes these values. The burden of proving these values is foremost on the plaintiff. Apart from his bare assertion that he was entitled to a basic monthly salary of GHc670.00, no other evidence was proffered by the plaintiff to support his claim. The defendant disputed this claim and tendered through her representative, as exhibit “2”, a copy of payment narrations by the company. Per exhibit “2”, the plaintiff's net salary was GHc539.46 and 563.46 for June 2014 and January 2015, respectively, after deductions had been made for SSNIT and welfare. These figures included fuel of GHc146.00, which formed part of his basic salary. The variation in salary was dependent on whether bonus was paid or not. There were no other payment narrations for September 2015, when the plaintiff stopped working, or months immediately preceding it. Thus, I accept the figure of GHc563.46 as the basic salary for the plaintiff. As this figure includes fuel of GHc146.00, the plaintiff’s claim for transport of GHc200.00 is disallowed. On the plaintiff's claim for rent allowance of GHc500.00, it came to light during the trial that the defendant secured accommodation for him at Lagos Town, Takoradi. This fact is evidenced by exhibit “3”, tendered by the defendant, showing the tenancy agreement between the defendant and the landlord on 31st July 2014. The plaintiff admitted during cross-examination that his rent had been paid for and was, therefore, not entitled to the allowance. The evidence also showed that the defendant paid for utilities at her rented premises; for that matter, the plaintiff is not entitled to his claim for utilities of GHc200.00. The plaintiff’s claim for refreshments of GHc80.00, credits of GHc40.00 and allowance of GHc360.00 is unsupported by any evidence. In light of the defendant’s denial of his entitlement to these claims, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to lead evidence in support of them. When a party makes an averment capable of proof in some positive way, for example, by producing documents, describing things, and referencing other facts, he does not prove it merely by going into the witness box and repeating that averment on oath. He is unlikely to be held by the court to have sufficiently proved that averment if he does not adduce corroborative evidence which (if his averment is true) is certain to exist. See Majolagbe vrs. Larbi [1959] 1 GLR 190. The plaintiff mounted the box to repeat his averments on oath without any proof of some sort of his entitlement to these claims. Therefore, his claim for refreshments, credits and allowance is disallowed. In essence, the plaintiff is entitled to his basic salary of GHc563.46 from October 2015 to date. The plaintiff also claims the recovery of his Samsung laptop, Seagate external hard drive, Samsung tablet and a Techno M9 mobile phone or, in the alternative, recovery of the sum of GHc5,500.00 being the total cost of the items. To this end, he testified that these items were seized from his official residence and office, all of which have yet to be returned to him. The plaintiff did not specify exactly who seized these items. However, from the tenor of his testimony, he appears to allude to the defendant. In her statement of defence, the defendant denied having seized the items. Thus, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to lead evidence to show that the defendant seized these items, which had not been returned to him. The plaintiff was also burdened to prove the value of the items he claimed were seized from him. Unfortunately, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence showing that the defendant seized these items from him. Apart from his bare assertion that the items were taken from him, no other evidence was forthcoming. DW1 testified that, upon his arrival to Takoradi, he met Peter Ocran near his residence, and they engaged in conversation. Subsequently, the plaintiff came around sweating profusely, claiming he had gone to Accra to solve some issues. According to the witness, the plaintiff had a bag behind him and upon inspection, assorted techno parts, phones and laptops were found in it. He tendered an inventory of the items in the bag signed by the plaintiff as exhibit “1”. None of these items included the items the plaintiff claims to have been seized from him by the defendant. The plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence of the seizure of these items, not to talk of their values. His relief on this ground is dismissed. The plaintiff is entitled to salary arrears of GHc563.46 from October 2015 to the date of the judgment (consisting of ninety-six (96) months), given that the defendant has not terminated his employment contract. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff for the sum of GH¢54,092.16. The judgment debt shall bear the interest at the prevailing bank rate from the date of the judgment till the date of final payment. (SGD.) H/L AFIA N. ADU-AMANKWA (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT. COUNSELS Emmanuel Tsibuah appears for the Plaintiff. Louis Blewusi appears for the Defendant. 18