APRAKUSU VRS MINERALS COMMISSION (H2/234/2020) [2021] GHACA 48 (25 November 2021)

APRAKUSU VRS MINERALS COMMISSION (H2/234/2020) [2021] GHACA 48 (25 November 2021)

The termination of the Appellant's appointment was unfair as he was not charged with any offence, not given an opportunity to be heard, and the procedure was not in accordance with the audi alteram partem rule. Reinstatement was impracticable due to the effluxion of time and proximity to retirement, so compensation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] GHACA 48
Parties
Complainant/appellant: Daniel Moore Aprakusu; Respondent/respondent: Minerals Commission
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
25 November 2021
Case Number
H2/234/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal succeeds in part
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Reinstatement, Compensation for Wrongful Dismissal, Natural Justice, Costs in Litigation
Source Language
english
Labour Law Employment Law Unfair Termination Reinstatement Compensation for Wrongful Dismissal Natural Justice Costs in Litigation

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Daniel Moore Aprakusu

Complainant/appellant

Minerals Commission

Respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the Appellant's appointment was unfair
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant was entitled to reinstatement or compensation
  3. 3 Whether the costs awarded were adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The termination of the Appellant's appointment was unfair as he was not charged with any offence, not given an opportunity to be heard, and the procedure was not in accordance with the audi alteram partem rule. Reinstatement was impracticable due to the effluxion of time and proximity to retirement, so compensation was appropriate. The costs awarded by the Commission were inadequate and increased to reflect reasonable expenses.

Court Disposition

appeal succeeds in part

Orders

  • Respondent to pay twenty-four (24) months basic salary exclusive of tax and statutory deductions as damages for unfair termination, at current Head of Audit salary levels.
  • Respondent to pay three (3) months basic salary in lieu of notice if not already paid.