J. S Bangura v S.L Electricity Corporation (SC CIV APP 10 of 1981) [1983] SLSC 25 (5 May 1983)

a2, 2N_THE cana RE SOU oe stem sao The Hono Se ae ee The Honourable Mre.J; es naa Siiste® sJustice A.V,A.Awunor-Renner = J.S.C. ‘The Honourable Mr, Justice 9, Beccles Davies ~ J.S.Ce The. Honourable Mr, Justice S.M.F. Kutubu = Tee $4. CIV, APP. No. 10/81 BETWEEN: : J. S. BANGURA = APPELLANT Vs : x S,L, ELECTRICITY CORPORATION - RESPONDENTS M, J, Clinton, Esq., for Appellant Miss P.S. Wellesiey-Cole for Respondent JUDGMENT DELIVERED THIS 5th DAY OF MAY, 198: HARDING, J.S.C.i-

The appellant was employed as a Payments Cashier by the Sierra Leone Electricity Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the respondents") and was earning a salary of Le1,350.00 per annum when he was summarily Atsgisaed from his employment on 1st October, 1973 by letter dated 28th September, 1973 alleging that the corporation's Board of Directors had concluded that he yas Youlpable for serious misconduct in respect of his handling and management of the Corporation's funds", The appeiiant was aggrieved with his dismissal and s0 he consulted a solicitor who, after exchange of correspondence vitn the respondents, instituted proceedings against then on venalf of the appellant for the recovery of arrears of satary and damages for wrongful dismissal by writ of summons dated 8th July, 1976. The respondents after entering appearance to the writ delivered and filed a

LP 30006

defence end counter-claim to which thé and filed a defence and reply, The appellant delivered and on 20th October, 1978, Williams Fare atone respondents’ counterclaim and gav. » J, dismissed the appellant in the sum of Le.2. beth aaxaaeinel od sett beta ne +2,067,50 which award included ow ee +1,365,00 assessed general damages. a felon ot ee! to the Court of Appeal against ams, J, on five grounds of appeal. In their judgment dated 14th July, 1981 the Court of Appeal (Ken E,0, During, Marcus B.A, Cole and M.S. Turay JS,A,) allowed the appeal on three of the grounds and heid that the other two were without merit, The three grounds on which the appeal succeeded weret~ "2, That the learned trial judge misdirected himself on the case for the appellants on the evidence, bh, That tho Learned trial judge erred in law in finding that the piaintiff/Respondent had been wrongfully aigmissed and 4m awarding damages to him.

5. Tuat the decdeion + against the weight of evidence." Marcus Cole, Jes 37 delivering the unanimous judgment of the Court stated 8° follows:= wane dsoue wnocher the appeaten' were justified sn the instant case in cunmeriiy decermining he respondent! # pervices was one of Facts there is no amas, poe of san Sees the degree og misconduct waselt Wi22 justify dismissal. [2b soon

Bach case vourg @epend on : ctrounetances, mr, ts facts and Anstant case nay, ee Sees the Board athe eles te Directors has sdessrtarsse tention to the ning to the pay Fell frauds in the Western Area and has reviewed the part you Played for vhich you were suspended, The Board tas coneluded that you are culpable for serious misconduct in respect of your handling and management of the Corporation's funds ...,, Gogent and credible evidence has been adduced by the appellants to justify that the respondent had been found culpable for serious misconduct in respect of his handling of the appellant's funds. ‘This decision was reached as a result of careful investigation by the appellants, . ‘A proper evaluation of the evidence and . worrect inference therefrom indicate irresistibly that the appeiiants were justified in sunmarily dismissing the respondent from their employ and I so " hold." the appoal now before this Court is against that Judgment, ‘Twelve grounds of appeal vere filed but in my wtey.gieunds 07} Wade TS sheeted Te mde qoantatas of the appellant, viz» LP vere

Se

"104 The Court of Appeal erred in law

in failing to uphold the High

Court decision which was based

upon the question of truthfulness

of the witnesses and not necessarily

upon inferences to be drawn. : 11, The Court of Appeal orred in holding

that the judge's finding in the

prosent case is based on inconsistencies

in the evidence of the appellants!

witnesses particularly that of DyWs25 12, The decision was against the weight

of evidence."

Gounse1 for the appellant conceded the respondents? rights both at common law and under the “Rules, Regulations and Conditions of Employment" of the Respondent Corporation te summarily dismiss the appellant, if he was guilty of serigis misconduct, but contended that misconduct must be proved on the balance of probabilities and that the burden @f proof throughout as to such misconduct was on the respendents; and that it was @ question of fact for the court to decide whether or not there was such a misconduct, He submitted that on the basis of the evidence adduced no sush misconduct had been proved and that the learned trial judge was right in finding that the appellant had been wrongfully dismissed from his employment.

- Gounsel for the respondents on the other handgontended that the Learned trial judge misdirected himself on the gave for the respondents on the evidenge that he ered tn law 4m finding that the appellant had been wrongfully dismiesed and urged that there was abundant evidense to sbov that the appellant's conduct in his office disciosed miagonduet, disobedience of lawful orders, dishonesty and negligenses [Bice

The pages read for this report end here. The judgment continues in the PDF.