Jessie Rowland H. Gittens-Stronge v Sierra Leone Brewery Limited (CIV APP 7 of 1979) [1980] SLSC 13 (17 December 1980)

| re ' IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE | Sopa ' i Hon, Mr. Justice B, Livesey Iuke - 0.J. | Hon, Mr, Justice C,A. Harding = J48,C. a3 Hon, Mr, Justice 0.B.R. Tejan - 3.8.0. Yon. Mre."A,V.A. Awunor-Renner = _J.8.C. Hon. Mr. Justice 8, Beccles Davies~ J.8.0. : Civ. App. 7/79 . BEDWEEN:~ i ft fessie Rowland H. Gittene-stronge ~' Appellant Sierra Leone Brewery Limited = Respondents A.B.N. Stronge, Esq. for the Appellant Berthan Macauley; Jz, tor the Respondents Judgment delivered on 17th day of December, 1980 LIVESEY LUKE C.J. The appellant entered the employment of the Respondent Company (hereinafter called the Company) on 20th August, 1970 as a Brewer-in-training. The Company are brewers of beer and stout. On 1st June, 1971 the appellant was made an Assistant Manager. The letter informing him of this decision was dated 6th June, 1971 and attached to it was "a gumaary of the terns and conditions of service for Assistant Management." ‘The appellant was required to complete axa sign the Service Agreement. That wag the first time the parties signed a formal written Contract of Service setting out the terms and conditions governing the appellant's employment. 5 The appellant was sent, to Ghana in 1971 for further training with the Kumasi Brewery. He returned to Sierra Leone ga or about February, 1972 after the successful completion fms. treining. In Beptember, 1972 he was sent to Heinekens Brewery, in Hollend for further treining, returning to Sierra Leone dn or abuut-tanch, 4973 after the completion of the training, During the letter 4 P2eveeee

-2e

period the Company nade arrangements for the appellant to | undergo a Management course in Britein. On tet July, 1973

the appellant was promoted +4 the post of Brewer/Manager,

which according to the letter (dated 5th June, 1975) communicating the good news to the appellant was of "full management status." ativeiesh, apart from informing the + appellant of certain improved benefits and facilities to i which he became entitled as "full manager," gidinotyotate

wp ere higusenai tind ce neminlaianaiiadaces. Nor

was a fresh contract of service setting out his terms and conditions of service as a full manager signed then or at all. There was a misunderstanding between the Production Manager

axd the appellant in December, 1975 relating to production on 31st December, 1975. This resulted in a written query dated

th January, 1976 doing issued by the Production Manager j Mr, A,O. Bart-Williems to the appellant. The appellant promptly sent a written reply to the query, and the matter seemed to

have ended there. Apart from that isolated incident the relationship between the appellant end his employers seemed

to have been satisfactory and cordial. Indeed by letter dated ‘st March, 1976 the eppellant was informed of certain improved bexefits and salary to which he became entitled. Everything seemed to have progressed normally and satisfactorily until

Sth October, 1976, The appellant reported for duty at 6 am. on that day. At about 9/00 a.m, he was summoned by the Acting General Manager. He immediately went to the General Manager's “Office where he met the Acting General Manager Mr. Koopmans ‘ond the Production Manager Mr. Bart-Williens, He was asked to sit down and ‘then tho Acting General Manager proceeded to pronounce these wordst: ,

me PBevecee

a5. = "Phe Company does not require your services any longer." In a state of shock axe disbelief the appellant retorted "I peg your pardcn?" Whereupon the Acting General Manager repeated his previcus. pronouncement. The appellent asked Me. Koopmans whether there was any reason for such action. Mz. Koopmans replied that he had received a complaint a week Defore from the Head of Security that he had gone round one morning at about 2 a.m, and had-found him (the appellant) sleeping whilst on duty, that on the previous Friday morning after’he (the appellant) had finished work he had found some bottles of beer in the Bright Beer Cellar and that on that same Friday the security officer had found two casual workers who in his opinion were intoxicated and Mr. Koopmans added that he thought the foregoing allegations amounted to negligence on his (the appellant's) part. Mr. Koopmans further referred to the Production Manager's query of 5th Jamuary, 1976 and concluded by saying that the Company did not therefore need his services any longer. Mr. Koopmans suggested to the appellant that instead of having his services terminated or being dismissed, he (the appellant) should adopt an easy way out by tendering a letter of resignation. The appellant replied that he was not prepared to do any such thing. Whereupon Mr, Koopmans said that the appellant could take it that his services had been terminated and that he could go home and await a letter to follow. The appellant subsequently _ Feceived the promised letter. It was dated 5th October, 1976 and in the following terms: ‘

pee cas "Dear Sir,

1 confirm your interview in my office this morning in the presence of the Production Manager. You appear semen unable or unwilling to conform to the Company's requirements of its managers, 0S evidenced by the series of disciplinary instances, drought to your attention both verbally and in writing by the Production Menager, the General Manager and nyself. :

I regret therefore that I have no alternative But to terhinate yolir dniployment with Sierra Leone Brewery Limited with imnediate effect.

You will be advised separately of your financial status with the Company, including your outstanding car loan, and your entitlements under Clause 11(a) of the Service Agreement. The Union African Pension Fund will also advise you as to your entitlement.

Yours faithfully, .

. (Sga.) C.D.M. Koopmans

Acting General Manager." A few weeks later the appellant received a letter dated 28th October, 1976 and signed by Mr. Koopmans. That letter referred to the letter dated 5th October, 1976 and proceeded to give details of the appellant's entitlement on termination of his employment including 1e69.10 as salary for 1st to 5th October, 1976, Le58.33 as rent allowance for Qctober, 1976 and Le1105 as 2 months salary in lieu of notice. The appellant was Fequested to call upon the Administratrix Union African Pension Fund, U,A.C, House, Freetown to collect the amount owed him.

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