Alormenu Vrs Ghana Cocoa Board [2023] GHASC 1 (8 February 2023)

Alormenu Vrs Ghana Cocoa Board [2023] GHASC 1 (8 February 2023)

The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof that the unsigned Conditions of Service and draft Policy Guidelines were binding on the defendant. The Chief Executive's authority to terminate was presumed regular under the law, and ex gratia payment was not applicable for termination due to misconduct. The Court of Appeal erred in shifting the burden to the defendant and in setting aside the findings of the Ad Hoc Committee without proper basis.

Citation
Alormenu Vrs Ghana Cocoa Board [2023] GHASC 1 (8 February 2023)
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: Isaac Alormenu; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Ghana Cocoa Board
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
8 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal judgment reversed; High Court judgment restored.
Legal Topics
Wrongful Termination, Burden of Proof, Conditions of Service, Disciplinary Proceedings, Ex Gratia Entitlement, Authority to Terminate Employment
Source Language
eng
Labour Law Employment Law Administrative Law Wrongful Termination Burden of Proof Conditions of Service Disciplinary Proceedings Ex Gratia Entitlement +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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Isaac Alormenu

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Ghana Cocoa Board

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether unsigned Conditions of Service and draft Policy Guidelines were binding on the parties
  2. 2 Whether the Chief Executive had authority to terminate plaintiff's employment
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff was entitled to ex gratia payment upon termination for misconduct

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof that the unsigned Conditions of Service and draft Policy Guidelines were binding on the defendant. The Chief Executive's authority to terminate was presumed regular under the law, and ex gratia payment was not applicable for termination due to misconduct. The Court of Appeal erred in shifting the burden to the defendant and in setting aside the findings of the Ad Hoc Committee without proper basis.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal judgment reversed; High Court judgment restored.

Orders

  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 29th July, 2021 set aside.
  • High Court decision dated 30th January, 2020 restored and substituted.