TETTEHFIO vrs GHANA HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (J4/01/23) [2024] GHASC 68 (24 January 2024)

TETTEHFIO vrs GHANA HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (J4/01/23) [2024] GHASC 68 (24 January 2024)

The appellant is estopped from denying the date of birth (21st May 1954) voluntarily provided in her personal records at first appointment with the respondent, and the respondent was justified in retiring her based on that date. The trial court's findings were inconsistent with the evidence and law; the Court of Appeal's judgment is affirmed.

Citation
TETTEHFIO vrs GHANA HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (J4/01/23) [2024] GHASC 68 (24 January 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Mercy Kabukie Tettehfio; Defendant/appellant/respondent: Ghana Highway Authority
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
24 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (supreme Court)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Retirement Age, Date of Birth Determination, Burden of Proof, Wrongful Termination, Statutory Presumptions, Conditions of Service
Source Language
eng
Labour Law Employment Law Evidence Law Administrative Law Retirement Age Date of Birth Determination Burden of Proof Wrongful Termination +2 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mercy Kabukie Tettehfio

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Ghana Highway Authority

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's correct date of birth is 21st May 1954 or 21st May 1956
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's compulsory retirement was wrongful or unlawful termination
  3. 3 Whether the trial court's findings were supported by evidence and applicable law

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant is estopped from denying the date of birth (21st May 1954) voluntarily provided in her personal records at first appointment with the respondent, and the respondent was justified in retiring her based on that date. The trial court's findings were inconsistent with the evidence and law; the Court of Appeal's judgment is affirmed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of Court of Appeal affirmed
  • No interference with Court of Appeal's findings