Kofi Kukubor, a lawyer and a Human Resources Practitioner has won his legal battle with his former employer, the Electricity Company of Ghana (ECG) over wrongful termination of appointment in an Accra High Court, Labour Division.
Court documents available to Tema Community 2 base Plan-B FM upon which judgment was given, indicate that the plaintiff’s statement of claims spelt out the details of the case which are captured below:
The plaintiff is a lawyer by profession and a Human Resources Practitioner who ordinarily resides at Teshie, Accra in the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana.
The defendant is a limited liability company, engaged in the distribution of electricity with its head offices located in Accra within Accra-Tema metropolitan area in the Republic of Ghana.
It is the claim of the plaintiff that he was engaged by the defendant company on 3rd day of January, 1993 as the Sectional Manager, Manpower Planning.
The plaintiff avers that he worked for the defendant company in that capacity at the Head Office level until in early 2000 when he was transferred to the Accra West Regional Office of the defendant company as the Regional Administrative Manager.
Sometimes in 2005, the plaintiff was promoted to the position of Divisional Manager now General Manager, Manpower Planning and Training and transferred to the Head Office.
It is the claim of the plaintiff that he served in that capacity and sometimes acted as the Director of Human Resources until February, 2013 when his appointment was wrongful terminated by the then Managing Director, William Hutton-Mensah.
The wrongful termination was borne out of personal vendetta, malice and evil.
This personal vendetta emanated from the fact that William Hutton-Mensah, when he was the Regional Director, now General Manager for the Accra East office of the defendant company manipulated the recruitment process of the defendant company and got the name of his private domestic servant unto the Payroll of the defendant company.
While the domestic servant served him, Hutton-Mensah in his house, the defendant company paid the private domestic servant monthly salary and all other entitlements for over four years as if he was a regular employee.
This was eventually detected and Hutton-Mensah was issued a query to explain his conduct.
As a matter of fact, it was the plaintiff who drafted William Hutton-Mensah’s query for the then Director of Human Resources signature.
It is the claim of the plaintiff that William Hutton-Mensah had a confrontation with the plaintiff over this matter query was issued.
William Hutton-Mensah’s response to the query was unsatisfactory as a result of which a committee of enquiry was set up to go into the matter.
The committee found William Hutton-Mensah culpable and he was supposed to have been dismissed for causing financial loss to the company.
The then Board of Director intervened and pleaded on William Hutton-Mensah’s behalf.
As a result of the supplications of the Board, the total amount of salary and other entitlements paid to Hutton-Mensah’s private house-help over the period was computed and this amounted over (GH¢70,000,00) Seventy Thousand Ghana Cedis. He was then ordered to pay three-quarters of the said amount to the defendant company. An amount which was charged to his pay slip to be deducted at source, until full and final payment.
The plaintiff says that in addition to this payment, Hutton-Mensah was removed from the Accra East Regional Offices as the Regional Director and brought to the Head Office as a Special Assistant to the Director of Operations.
These developments did not go down well with Hutton-Mensah and it became obvious that he bore a grudge against the plaintiff which grudge manifested later.
The plaintiff avers that William Hutton-Mensah schemed and maneuvered through the then Board of Directors and was appointed as the Acting Managing Director of the Defendant Company in early 2012.
A position, he was not properly qualified to encumber.
Earlier in 2011, the plaintiff as a member of the Joint Negotiation Committee of the defendant company was billed to attend a training programme in Advocacy and Negotiation skills in Toronto, Canada.
The plaintiff avers that the then Board of Directors disallowed the plaintiff to attend the programme because the plaintiff had challenged the Board over an excess per diem which some of the Board member took while travelling on official assignment on behalf of the defendant Company outside the country on two occasions.
The same programme was listed in 2012 corporate training programme and approved for the benefit of the plaintiff. The three-week programme was designed for the peculiar needs of the plaintiff so it was tailored-made solely for the benefit of the plaintiff as the only participant.
The programme was originally slated for 21st May, 2012 for the three-week period and all travelling arrangements were made for the plaintiff to depart Ghana on the 19th of May 2012.
Since the plaintiff wanted to enjoy part of his vacation leave abroad, he applied and was granted thirty-five (35) working days leave in addition to the three weeks covering the programme.
The plaintiff avers that on the night of the 18th of May, 2012, the organizers of the programme in Canada called him and indicated that the Professor who was to facilitate the programme for the plaintiff was indisposed and therefore proposed a new date of 26th June to 13th, July, 2012.
The rescheduled dates fell within the plaintiff’s vacation leave period so it was convenient because the plaintiff was not expected at work until the 31st of July, 2012.
The plaintiff the arrived in Canada on the 23rd of June 2012, took part in the programme between 26th June and 13th July, 2012 and returned to Ghana on 29th of July, 2012.
On the 31st of July, 2012, the plaintiff reported for duty as expected.
Three months later sometime in October, 2012, William Hutton-Mensah sent a query to the plaintiff to explain the certification of the programme and rescheduled dates.
The plaintiff replied to the query and explained that the Institute prepared the course certification as soon as the visa was secured and the course fees paid by the Defendant Company.
This was fully explained in a letter from the Institute to the then Ag. Director of Human Resources Robert Sarpong, now retired.
The plaintiff contends that irrespective of the explanations from the Institute, and because of ill motive, William Hutton-Mensah decided to constitute a committee of enquiry to investigate the matter.
The plaintiff says that William Hutton-Mensah constituted the committee and appointed one Lawyer Osei-Kuffour of the Board Secretariat as the Chairman.
The plaintiff avers that he objected to the appointment of Osei-Kufour as the chairman of the committee of enquiry because there was rift between Lawrence Osei-Kufour and the plaintiff but because both William Hutton-Mensah and Lawrence Osei-Kufour had planned a vendetta against the plaintiff, Hutton-Mensah ignored the plaintiff’s objection to Osei-Kufour being the chairman of the committee of enquiry.
The inception of the rift between the plaintiff and Osei-Kufour dates to when the plaintiff was the Acting Director of Resources in the Defendant Company.
During the period while the plaintiff acted in the acting capacity, Osei-Kufour lobbied the then Board of Directors of the defendant company to create a new position (Director of Board Secretariat) for him.
The plaintiff avers that as the Acting Director of Human Resources, he objected to the creation of his position because it was unnecessary since the Director of Legal Servicesal ready performed role of the Board Secretary. Moreover it was a sheer waste of the defendant company’s resources since the span of control in such a new directorate was negligible and there would hardly be any major duties to be performed in such a new directorate apart from covering board meetings and handling company insurance issues.
Despite the plaintiff’s objection, the then Board under the chairmanship of Dr. Kweku Sarfo proceeded to empanel four Board members to interview Osei Kufour for the position.
At this point, the plaintiff wrote to the then Acting Managing Director, one Anthony Gyampo and protested about the unhealthy development and stated further that such Top Management position interviews always empaneled professionals in addition to the internal panelists to engender fairness, objectivity and merit among others.
It was at this point that the then Acting Managing Director, Anthony Gyampo gave the plaintiff the approval to empanel external professionals as well to conduct the interview.
The plaintiff says that he therefore wrote to the Public Services Commission to nominate one of its officers to sit on the panel. In addition, the plaintiff wrote to a corporate governance consultant, one Mr. Kwame Nyamekye to also sit on the panel.
At the interview, Osei-Kufour failed miserably, When the Board intervened on his behalf, the panel decided to give him another chance and the interview was rescheduled to afford Osei-Kufour the opportunity to revise his notes.
The outcome of the second interview was a complete disaster. He was the only candidate and has had the privilege and the added advantage of working at the Board Secretariat throughout his career in the defendant company but could not make it.
The plaintiff says that at this juncture, the Board intervened again and pleaded with the panelists to recommend the appointment of Osei-Kufour to the position since it was purposely created for him.
Osei-Kufour was therefore given the position of the Director of the Board Secretariat on silver platter.
The plaintiff avers that as a result of these ramifications, Osei-Kufour had a grudge against the plaintiff and never talked to him again.
It is the plaintiff’s contention that these were the reasons why he objected to Osei-Kufour being made the Chairman of the committee to investigate the matter but then the then Managing Director William Hutton-Mensah ignored the plaintiff’s objection since he and Osei-Kufour had planned to truncate the services of the plaintiff with the defendant company.
The plaintiff says that the committee invited him in early October 2012 about three months after he had reported for duty from the training programme in Canada.
At the committee hearing, the plaintiff provided his passport, a confirmation letter from the institute in Canada which explained succinctly the changes in date of the programme, and a training report on the plaintiff from the Professor facilitated the programme for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff says that he also provided the committee with detailed report on the sequence of events and requested the committee members to attach it to their report. A copy of this catalogue of events was also sent to the then Managing Director, William Hutton-Mensah.
The plaintiff avers that since October, 2012 after the committee’s sitting, nothing happened. Then in December, 2012 just before the Christmas recess, the Board appointed Osei-Kufour to take additional responsibility for Human Resources Directorate after the Acting Director had retired. This was a calculated attempt by the Board to frustrate the plaintiff because the Board was fully aware of the tension between Osei-Kufour and the plaintiff. Moreover the vacant position of the Director of Human Resources had been advertised and plaintiff had applied for the position.
In view of these unfortunate developments, the plaintiff took his accumulated leave.
It was while the plaintiff was on leave that the then Managing Director, Hutton-Mensah wrote to terminate his appointment with effect from 1st February, 2021. The reasons for the termination were:
- Causing Financial Loss to the defendant company.
- Vacation of post
Contrary to the defendant company rules and regulation, the plaintiff was never queried on any charges of causing financial loss and vacating post.
The plaintiff in response to the termination, according to MANUAL OF STAFF REGULATIONS FOR SENIOR STAFF, petitioned Hutton-Mensah explaining to him that the termination was wrongful because he did not have any basis for the decision since there was ample evidence to show that the plaintiff did attend the programme and had also reported for duty on 31st of July, 2012 as expected. There was therefore no financial loss caused and the plaintiff did not vacate post.
By the terms of the MANUAL OF STAFF REGULATIONS FOR SENIOR STAFF which regulated the employment conditions of the plaintiff, the then Managing Director, William Hutton-Mensah was supposed to respond to the plaintiff’s petition within four weeks but because he, Hutton-Mensah did not have any defense to the wrongful termination, he neglected and or refused to reply to the plaintiff’s petition.
The plaintiff says that to seek redress from an independent source, he appealed to the then Minister of Energy Hon. Emmanuel Armah Kofi-Buah who evaluated the appeal, found merit in it, reinstated the plaintiff and wrote to the then Board of Directors to investigate the matter.
As a result of the reinstatement, the plaintiff reported for duty sometimes in March, 2013.
Willian Hutton-Mensah then summoned the plaintiff to his office and categorically told him the he Hutton-Mensah did not write to him the plaintiff to report for work and that he should stay away from the office irrespective of the Minister’s letter of reinstatement.
When the plaintiff closed from work on that day, Osei-Kufour changed the lock on the plaintiff’s office door ostensibly to deny the plaintiff access to his office.
According to the Minister’s letter to the Board to investigate the matter, the report of the Board was to reach the Minister’s office within two weeks, that was the 3rd of April, 2012.
Strangely enough, the Board refused to investigate the matter because sometimes in 2011 when some of the Board members and Osei-Kufour went on official factory inspection upon the invitation by Lucy Engineering Company Limited in the UK, and a second trip to Paris, France, Osei-Kufour presented per diem for participants far in excess of what company rules and regulations allowed for the plaintiff who was the Acting Director of Human Resources refused to endorse the excess per diem.
Osei-Kufour simply bypassed the plaintiff, sent the excess per diem to the then Acting Managing Director, Mr. Anthony Gyampo who also doubled as a Board member for approval and it was approved.
The plaintiff says that upon the return of the Board members from the trips, he, the plaintiff wrote to the Acting Managing Director then, Anthony Gyampo and requested for refund of the excess per diem which amounted to about (US$25,000) Twenty-Five Thousand United States dollars.
This money was never paid back by Osei-Kufour and some of the Board members. The reaction of the Board to this was transfer the plaintiff to head the Defendant Company’s operations in the Volta Region. The timely intervention of the then Energy Minister, Hon. Oteng-Adjei nullified the unwarranted and vindictive transfer.
These, I believe were some of the reasons why the Board refused to investigate the matter.
Amidst this furore, Hutton-Mensah, Osei-Kufour and one William Boateng whipped up anti-Kukubor sentiments among the Union and Senior Staff of the Defendant Company.
The plaintiff, says that William Boateng, an employee of the Defendants company who was then the Vice President of the Senior Staff Association now Senior Staff Union, joined the fray to prevent the return of the plaintiff to work because in September, 2012, William Boateng was to attend a training programme at the Royal Institute of Public Administration (RIPA) in the UK. The plaintiff accordingly computed William Boateng’s per diem as per the defendant company’s rules and regulations.
The plaintiff avers that William Boateng took a total of about (US$9,900) Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred United States dollars as per diem for the trip.
The British Embassy however denied William Boateng an entry visa to the UK as a result of which the plaintiff instructed William Boateng to pay the money back to chest.
The plaintiff says that William Boateng refused and or neglected to pay the money back to chest.
As at January, 2013, when the plaintiff took his annual leave before the wrongful termination, William Boateng had not paid the money back to chest.
To muddy the waters, William Boateng as the P.R.O of the defendant company, concocted stories about the plaintiff and caused same to be published on social media specifically, the GhanaWeb and Myjoyonline.
The plaintiff avers that he sued the Multimedia Group for defamation and the Group opted for an out-of-court-settlement, compensated the plaintiff and retracted the same offensive publication.
William Boateng is fully aware that the issue of the per diem would resurface upon the resumption of duty of the plaintiff so he was making every effort to prevent just that.
In a latter part of 2013, the Board was reconstituted and Dr. Oteng-Gyasi was appointed the chair of the reconstituted Board.
The then Minister of Energy, Hon. Armah Kofi Buah then wrote to the new Board Chairman to investigate the matter.
The new Board Chairman, Dr. Oteng-gyasi in reaction, procured the services of the renowned industrial relation and labour expert, Mr Austin Gamey to investigate the matter.
The plaintiff avers that the matter was thoroughly investigated by the Gamey Committee and the plaintiff was exonerated of any wrong-doing and the termination declared wrongful.
The Gamey report was presented sometime in April, 2014 as a result of which the then Managing Director, William Hutton-Mensah was instructed by the Board Chairman to write to the plaintiff to resume duty.
Despite this directive, Hutton-Mensah refused to write to the plaintiff to resume duty until he, Hutton-Mensah, was removed as M. D. and reassigned to the Ministry of Power.
A new Managing Director Mr. Robert Dwamena was appointed sometimes in late 2014.
In January, 2015, the plaintiff wrote to Mr. Dwamena and reminded him about the need to implement the recommendations of the Gamey report and he promised to write to the plaintiff as soon as he, Mr. Dwamena settled.
The plaintiff says that even though Mr. Dwamena gave assurance to write to the plaintiff, he never did until he was removed from office around the quarter of 2016.
In the last quarter of 2017, the Board was reconstituted as a result of which the plaintiff petitioned the chairman on 19th of December, 2017. To date, there has been no response.
The plaintiff contends that unless compelled by this honorable court, the wrongful termination would not be expunged from his records with the defendant company.
The plaintiff claims as per the writ of summons against the defendant include a declaration that the termination of appointment of the plaintiff was wrongful, irregular and of no effect.
A further declaration that, the wrongful termination details be expunged from the Plaintiff’s records with the defendant company.
An order for the payment of all accumulated salary and other benefits due the plaintiff as an employee of the defendant company from 1st day of February, 2013 to the last day of his regular employment period with defendant company.
An order for unfettered apology to the Plaintiff for wrongful termination, general damages, cost including legal fees and any further orders deemed fit by the court.
As a lawyer, Kofi Kukubor prosecuted his own case.
Indeed, the wheels of justice grind slowly
Discussion about this post