Standard Chartered Bank SL LTD v Frances Forewa (SC CIV APP 2 of 2005) [2007] SLSC 7 (23 October 2007)

a IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE SC CIV. APP. NO.2/2005 ~ BETWEEN: STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (S.L.) LTD = APPELLANT AND, MRS. FRANCES FOREWA - RESPONDENT (AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF J.S, FOREWA (DECEASED))

Coram

HON. MS. JUSTICE UH. TEJANJALLOH - —-J.S.C. HON. MR. JUSTICE G. SEMEGAVANNEH - JSC. HON. MR. JUSTICE M.E.T. THOMPSON = - U.S.C. HON. MR. JUSTICE P.O. HAMILTON dA HON. MS. JUSTICE S, BASH-TAQI = dA COUNSEL: MR. PATRICK LAMBERT AND WITH HIM MS. MARIAMA DUMBUYA FOR THE APPELLANT MR. E.E.C. SHEARS-MOSES AND WITH HIM MRS. MA.P. DAVIES FOR THE RESPONDENT JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON THE 23" DAY OF OCTOBER, 2007.

SEMEGA-JANNEH J.S.C. On the first of November 1965, Steridard Chartered Bank Sierra Leone Limited (Appellant herein and hereinafter referred to as "the y

22s > Bank") employed John Augustus Forewa (Respondent herein and hereinafter called “Mr. Forewa”) as a clerk. He rose through the ranks and as at the time his . services were terminated by letter dated the 23"' October 1992 (Exhibit C-1") he had reached the rank of manager and was aged forty-three (43) years old. The * termination letter alleged that the Bank's investigation of Mr. Forewa revealed ~ that he was negligent in his duties and guilty of misconduct; as a result his sefvices were terminated with immediate effect. ‘The investigations referred to were in respect of allegations that Mr. Forewa during his tenure as manager of the Bank's Makeni branch had suppressed cheques instead of following the Bank's procedure in respect of the processing of cheques. The terinination letter is the result of the investigations. Mr. Forewa ‘was, at the time of his termination, paid one month's salary in lieu of notice and given his terminal benefits. Mr. Forewa protested the termination by a letter dated the 30” November 1992 (Exhibit ‘D’) and when he received no response he instructed his solicitor. ‘The solicitor caused a Writ to issue in which Mr. Forewa claims the following reliefs: ” *(e) The salary he would have eamed up to and incliding the retiring ‘age of 60 years (he being 43) years at an annual salary of Le.2,682,819.00 (Two Million Six hundred and eighty-two thousand eight hundred and nineteen Leones) with prospect of a salary increase to wit for 17 years. (b) Leave pay for 17 years at 15% of the Plaintiffs basic annual salary AND (c) Rent subsidy for 17 years at 10% of the plaintiffs yearly basic salary. yr (d) Lunch allowance of Le.25,000.00 (Twenty-five thousand Leones) monthly. (e) Monthly car allowance of Le.25,000.00 (Twontty-five thousand Leones). He also claims general damages. y

. Brib + The learmed Judge of the High Court, A.B. Raschid, J, after reviewing the . evidence concluded that the Bank had breached the contract of employment in that the Bank, amongst others, failed to give Mr. Forewa a fair opportunity to P defend himself and, therefore, gave judgment to Mr. Forewa. In his judgment, he / * concluded that since no contractual term for notice to terminate the employment waa in evidence he would resort to the common law principle of reasonable notice and, after taking into account the circumstances “including the nature of the employment arid the difcilly of geting such another or a lke one", held that twelve months notice was reasonable. He accordingly awarded Mr. Forewa the following: i

Eleven month's salary - — Le.2,459,250.08,

Eleven month's car allowance - 275,000.00

Eleven month's lunch allowance - 275,000.00

Rent allowance of 11 months - 368,887.00

Totat = — Le.3,378,37.69 ‘The Bank being dissatisfied with the judgment appealed to the Court of Appeal! ‘on the following grounds: i

"1. That the leamed Judge misdirected himself on the evidence when he held that there was no agreement relating to the notice to be given by the Defendants (the Bank) before terminating thé Plaintitis (itr, Forewa's) employment. (Bracketed words added).

2, That the leamed trial Judge erred in law in holding that in the absence of an agreement the Plaintiff was entitled to 12 months salary in lieu of notice of termination of of his services.

y

3. That the judgment is against the weight of the evidence:

2 2a From the Grounds of Appeal itis clear that the Bank did not appeal the decision as of A.B, Raschid.d that the Bank breached the contract of employment with Mr. - Forewa by the manner the termination was carried out. Notwithstanding the fact that the breach of contract was not an issue in the appeal and that as a matter of > fact the issue was not argued before the Court of Appeal, F.C. Gbow J. dealt with + the issue and, rightly, without making any determination. The thrust of Counsel's arguments centered on what period of notice was applicable on the facts of the case. . ‘The Court of Appeal in the judgment of F.C. Gbow J. examined the evidence and came to the same conclusion as the trial court that there was no acceptable ‘evidence of a contractual term of notice. The court held that in the circumstances the Common Law principle of reasonable notice was the applicable yardstick and allowed twelve months as reasonabile, with V.A.D. Wright J.S.C. dissenting on this point, thus confirming the judgment of A.B. Raschid J. In the result, the Appeal was accordingly dismissed. Once more the Bank was dissatisfied and appealed to this Court. The grounds, without the particulars, are as follows:-

(1) That the Court of Appeal failed to consider and give due weight to the available oral evidence given by P.W.1, P.W.2 and D.W.2 at the |» trial as to the quantum of notice required to terminate the Plaintif's employment.

(2) The Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that twelve months" notice was reasonable in the circumstances of this case.

(3) The Court of Appeal erred in law when it held that the Appellants/ Defendants were obliged to produce a copy of the Respondent’ Plaintiffs Letter of appointment after Notice to produce was served

z on them.

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