IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE LIVESEY-LUKE C.J.
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE C.A. HARDING J.S.C.
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE O.B.R. TEJAN J.S.C.
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE A.V.A. AWUNOR J.S.C
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE S. BECCLES DAVIES J.S.C.
JUDGEMENT DATED 17TH DECEMBER 1980
ACTION
a. An action for general and special damages for wrongful dismissal
FACTS
The facts of this matter are that Gittens Strong is a manager of the respondent who after a year was promoted to Manager of Sierra Leone Brewery. The contract of employment regarding the Assistant manager stated the terms and conditions of service whereas there was only a letter of promotion to Manager. On a specific date the Acting General Manager terminated the service of the appellant after receiving a complaint from the Head of Scrutiny. To this the appellant instituted an action from wrongful dismissal.
FINDINGS/ANALYSIS
The learned trial Judge held that Gittens-Strong service was terminated and not dismissed, that the terms that governed the termination was that which was given to him during his initial appointment. The question that arose in the Appeal Court was the distinction between termination, dismissal whether he was properly dismissed. To that question the Court of Appeal stated that the distinction is of no importance. The Appeals Court further stated that the Company had failed to give reasons for the dismissal. In the Supreme Court, it was stressed that an action for wrongful dismissal is an action for breach of contract and that breach and damages must be proved. Moreover, wrongful dismissal of a person is entitled to general damages for breach of contract. The case brings to mind the law that an employer must comply with the terms of employment when dismissing or terminating the contract of an employee; otherwise, his termination and dismissal would be wrongful. Wrongful termination or dismissal would be used nevertheless. It is also worthy to note that a plaintiff in an action for wrongful dismissal may claim special damages for future loss base on the circumstance.
DECISION OF THE COURT
The Court in allowing the appeal held that the Appellant’s employment service was wrongfully terminated by the company because they failed to follow the terms of the clause. And the Court stress the fact that it cannot go beyond what statutes made no provisions for.