SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE
CORAM
HON. MR JUSTICE C. A HARDING- JSC
HON. MR. JUSTICE F.A SHORT - JSC
HON. MRS. JUSTICE. A. AWUNOR-RENNER - JSC
HON. MR. JUSTICE .S. B. DAVIES- JSC
HON. MR. JUSTICE M.S TURAY - J.A
BETWEEN
OSMAN B. CONTEH - APPELLANT
AND
SIERRA LEONE DOCK WORKERS UNION - RESPONDENTS
SC.CIV.APP.NO.5/84
JUDGEMENT DATED - 8TH DAY OF JULY, 1994.
FACTS
The Appellant was the Secretary General of the Sierra Leone Dock Workers Union from 1971 to 1979 when he was suspended and later dismissed by the Executive Council. Prior to the suspension and later dismissal, a meeting was convened in his absence and he was not informed of the charges or reasons for the suspension. He then brought an action seeking for a declaration that his suspension and later dismissal by the Executive Council was against the Rules of Natural Justice and as such illegal and for same to be held to be in contravention of the Rules of the Union. He also claimed for remuneration. At the Court of first instance, judgment was given in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed and the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the High Court. The respondent, now the appellant has appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds; that the Court of Appeal failed to support their conclusion on the evidence with established legal principles; that the Court of Appeal failed to consider and apply the legal principles and presumptions of natural justice and that the Court failed to consider the legal issues raised on both sides of the arguments.
ISSUES
The main issues for the Court to determine are:
a. Whether the Court of Appeal ought to have averted its mind to and applied the principles of natural justice.
b. whether the suspension and dismissal of the Appellant from the office of the Secretary General by the Executive Council was illegal thereby making the Appellant entitled to arrears of salary plus other fringe benefits from the date of suspension to the date of judgment in the High Court.
DECISION OF THE COURT
In determining the issues outlined above, the Supreme Court found that although the Executive Council had the power to dismiss any officer, their action in dismissing the Appellant without giving him an opportunity to defend himself was in contravention of one of the principles of natural justice which is ‘audi alteram partem’ which means to hear the other side. This position would have been different as was mentioned by the court if the Appellant had been dismissed by the Union with which there is a master-servant relationship and the Appellant holding the office at the pleasure of the Union. For this, the judge cited ‘Terrel and Secretary of State.’ As such, had the dismissal come from the Union, there would have been no need for the Appellant to have been heard and hence, the Executive Council had no power to dismiss him without due process pursuant to Rule 8(4) of the Rules of the Dock Workers Union.
The Court further held that the Court of Appeal was wrong to have reached a different conclusion without considering and applying the aforementioned principle of natural justice which was more or less embedded in Rule 19(3) of the Rules of the Dock Workers Union when they were very much aware as was evident from the utterances of Justice Navo JA. that the appellant was not informed of the charges brought against him neither was he given the opportunity to defend himself.
Thus, the claim of the Appellant to salary and other benefit was granted.
Written by: Shaday Kanu
Edited by: C.M Jonah