Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Respondent (Samuel Kwabena Oppong) was employed by the Appellant (Carana Corporation) as a Finance Sector Support Unit Manager from 2014 to 2018 under a fixed-term contract. The Appellant terminated his employment in 2016 citing unmet deliverables after a performance improvement plan, but conducted a mandatory performance appraisal later that year which gave him a score of 3.75/5 (described as 'better than average' but not meritorious). The trial court ruled the termination unlawful, awarding general damages (GH₵100,000) and special damages (US$150,000), while the appellate court upheld the finding of no underperformance but set aside the special damages award as unsupported by evidence.
Issues
- The trial judge's interpretation of a 3.75 score as 'above average' under the employment contract's performance metrics, despite the score falling between 'Average' (3) and 'Above Average' (4), and the Appellant's argument that this was not supported by the evidence.
- Whether the respondent underperformed under his fixed-term contract, as the Appellant claimed, or if the 3.75 score and evidence of project value growth (US$101 million in 2 years) demonstrated adequate performance.
- Whether the trial judge's award of US$150,000 in special damages for loss of reputation and professional integrity was justified, given the absence of evidence and the nature of the case as wrongful termination rather than defamation.
- Whether the trial judge's findings were against the weight of the evidence, particularly regarding the respondent's performance and the validity of the termination.
- Whether the GHc100,000 general damages awarded for wrongful termination were excessive and harsh, considering legal precedents and the principle of freedom of contract.
Holdings
- The Appellate Court dismissed grounds (a), (b), (d), and (e) of the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings that the Respondent's score of 3.75 was between 'Average' and 'Above Average' and that the Respondent did not underperform under his employment contract. The court upheld the trial judge's determination that the termination was wrongful and the general damages of GHc100,000.00 were justified.
- The court set aside the award of US$150,000.00 in special damages, ruling it lacked merit as there was no evidence to support the claim and the Respondent had a duty to mitigate losses. The court clarified that special damages for wrongful termination are uncommon in Ghanaian law.
- The Appellate Court confirmed that the trial judge correctly awarded general damages for wrongful termination, citing precedent where courts have awarded such damages for severance of labor. The quantum of GHc100,000.00 was deemed appropriate.
Remedies
- The court awarded general damages of GHc100,000 for unlawful termination and breach of contract.
- The court declared that the termination of the Plaintiff's employment was wrongful and unlawful.
- The court awarded costs of Ghc30,000 against the Appellant.
- The court declared the termination letter written by the Defendant to the Plaintiff was unlawful and in violation of the terms of the employment contract.
Monetary Damages
100000.00
Legal Principles
- The court considered the duty of an employee to mitigate losses following wrongful termination, referencing statutory provisions (Section 17 of Act 651) and precedents like Ashun v. Accra Brewery Limited. This principle was used to justify the dismissal of the special damages claim for reputational harm.
- The appellate court emphasized that the Appellant bore the burden to demonstrate the trial judge's findings were not supported by the evidence, particularly regarding the Respondent's performance score and allegations of underperformance. This principle is central to appeals under the 'judgment against weight of evidence' ground.
- The court applied the principle that contractual documents must be interpreted according to their literal meaning unless otherwise proven, as demonstrated in the analysis of the Respondent's performance score of 3.75 and its classification as 'better than average' but not 'Above Average' (rating 4). This aligns with the legal authority in Boateng v. Volta Aluminum Co. Ltd and PY Atta & Sons Ltd v. Kingsman Enterprises Ltd.
Precedent Name
- Ansong Vrs Gorman and Another
- Eastern Alloys Company Ltd v. Chirano Gold Mines
- PY Atta & Sons Ltd v. Kingsman Enterprises Ltd
- Barclays Bank Limited v. Godson Awortwi Dadzie and Philip Nyatuame
- Achoro and anor V. Akanfela
- Tuakwa v Bosom
- Boateng v. Volta Aluminum Co. Ltd
- Ashun v. Accra Brewery Limited
Cited Statute
Act 651
Judge Name
- Justice E. Ankamah
- Justice M. Welbourn (Mrs)
- Justice A. Oppong
Passage Text
- We are of the opinion that the Respondent did not underperform on his job and the trial judge was right when he held that: '...the Respondent did not underperform by scoring an annual performance score of 3.75 out of 5 which was above average and was also able to move the value of the project from US$1.8 million to US$101 million at the time of termination.'
- In conclusion, save that there was no basis or merit by the High Court in the award of US$150,000.00 as special damages, the appeal succeeds in part. Grounds a, b, d and e are dismissed.
- The score of 3.75 therefore falls between Average and Above Average. During cross-examination of Plaintiff, this was not disputed. It is therefore settled that the score of 3.75 was between Average and Above Average.