EDEM VRS KWARLEYZ GROUP & ANOTHER (GJ/0301/2022) [2024] GHAHC 21 (28 March 2024)

EDEM VRS KWARLEYZ GROUP & ANOTHER (GJ/0301/2022) [2024] GHAHC 21 (28 March 2024)

Plaintiff was employed solely by the 2nd Defendant under a valid contract. Her termination was wrongful as it breached contractual and statutory notice requirements, and Defendants failed to prove alleged incompetence or lack of qualification. No basis was established for piercing the corporate veil to hold the 1st Defendant liable.

Citation
EDEM VRS KWARLEYZ GROUP & ANOTHER (GJ/0301/2022) [2024] GHAHC 21 (28 March 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff: Celestine Ruth Edem; 1st Defendant: Kwarleyz Group; 2nd Defendant: Belfast City Management Limited
Court
ghahc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
28 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Employment / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff’s claim against 1st Defendant dismissed; judgment for Plaintiff against 2nd Defendant for wrongful termination.
Legal Topics
Wrongful Termination, Unfair Termination, Corporate Veil, Employment Contracts, Probationary Employment, Damages for Wrongful Dismissal
Source Language
eng
Employment Law Company Law Wrongful Termination Unfair Termination Corporate Veil Employment Contracts Probationary Employment Damages for Wrongful Dismissal

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Celestine Ruth Edem

Plaintiff

Kwarleyz Group

1st Defendant

Belfast City Management Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Employment / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a valid contract of employment between Plaintiff and Defendants
  2. 2 Whether the circumstances of Plaintiff’s termination amounted to wrongful termination under Ghana’s Labour Laws
  3. 3 Whether the circumstances of Plaintiff’s termination amounted to unfair termination under Ghana’s Labour Laws

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff was employed solely by the 2nd Defendant under a valid contract. Her termination was wrongful as it breached contractual and statutory notice requirements, and Defendants failed to prove alleged incompetence or lack of qualification. No basis was established for piercing the corporate veil to hold the 1st Defendant liable.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff’s claim against 1st Defendant dismissed; judgment for Plaintiff against 2nd Defendant for wrongful termination.

Orders

  • 2nd Defendant to pay Plaintiff GH¢25,000.00 as general damages for wrongful termination
  • 2nd Defendant to pay any outstanding Social Security contributions for January 2021 to July 2021