LANDO v. ANGELO AND ANOTHER [1961] GLR 210
21 April 1961 · OLLENNU J · ≈ 2 min read
[1961] SLR (HC) 18Other citation styles and permanent link
SLR is the Superlaw Reports citation series assigned by SuperLawGH. It is not an official law report. Suggested styles are a guide, so check your institution’s style guide.
DIVISION: IN THE HIGH COURT, ACCRA
DATE: 21ST APRIL, 1961
BEFORE: OLLENNU, J.
CASE REFERRED TO
Hanley v. Pease & Partners Ltd. [1915] 1 K.B.698
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
Action for damages for wrongful dismissal.
COUNSEL
A.W. Acquaah for G.S. Lassey for the plaintiff.
E.K. Akyea-Djamson for K. Ofosu-Asante for the defendants.
JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J. After stating the facts continued:] It was submitted for the defendants that they have not dismissed the plaintiff; that they merely suspended him, pending a checking of statement of accounts submitted by the plaintiff to the company out of which a quarrel arose. In the first place the defendants are estopped by the averment in paragraph 9 of their statement of defence that they dismissed the plaintiff, from now denying that they dismissed him. Moreover, there is nothing in the service agreement, exhibit A which could be construed as giving the defendants power to suspend the plaintiff for any cause. The law is that in the absence of any express or implied term in a contract giving power to a master to suspend his servant from his employment for misconduct, the master is not entitled to punish the servant for alleged misconduct by suspending him from employment; if he suspends him he will be liable to pay to the servant all wages due to him for the duration of the suspension: see Volume 25 of Halsbury’s Laws of England, (3rd ed.) page 518, paragraph 989 and Hanley v. Pease and Partners Ltd.1(1) Therefore even if this were a case of suspension the defendants will still be liable to the plaintiff. The defendants did dismiss the plaintiff; there is no justification whatever for the dismissal, the evidence shows clearly that the dismissal is wrongful. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to damages. He is in law entitled as damages to the amount he has been prevented from earning by reason of the wrongful dismissal.2(2) The plaintiff was dismissed on or about the 6th of September, 1960. At that date he was owed arrears of salary for July and August, amounting to £G320. He was out of employment from September to the 16th December, 1960. Consequently he lost his salary for three and a half months amounting to £G560. But he claims only £G500 damages for his wrongful dismissal, and so the court cannot award him more.
DECISION
Judgment for plaintiff.
