In a clear and timely restatement of Ghana’s modern labour law, the Court of Appeal in Theresa Tweneboa v. Ghana Grid Company has reinforced a principle that can no longer be treated as optional. Where an employer terminates employment on stated grounds, the responsibility for justification lies squarely with the employer.
The decision puts to rest any lingering reliance on older common law thinking that places the evidential burden on the employee. Instead, it affirms the protective scheme under the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651), which prioritises fairness, both in reason and in process.
Facts and Procedural History
The appellant, a senior finance officer, had her employment brought to an end following allegations relating to the improper acquisition and extension of special salary advances. What began as an internal investigation into what the employer described as an “intolerable offence” progressed into disciplinary proceedings. These proceedings initially resulted in dismissal, which was later reduced to termination.
Unsatisfied with the outcome, the appellant turned to the High Court. She sought declarations that her termination was wrongful, alongside reinstatement and damages. The High Court, however, dismissed her claims. It held that she had failed to discharge the burden of proof and accepted that the employer had complied with the statutory notice requirements.
On appeal, the dispute narrowed into a single, decisive question as to whether the termination was fair.
The Central Holding: Who Bears the Burden?
The Court of Appeal answered that question by correcting what it saw as a fundamental legal misstep by the trial court. It held that the burden had been wrongly placed on the employee.
Relying on section 64 of the Labour Act, the Court reaffirmed that where termination is based on specific grounds such as misconduct, incompetence, or redundancy, the employer must establish two things. First, that there was a fair and valid reason for the termination. Second, that the termination was carried out through a fair procedure.
This position marks a deliberate move away from the traditional common law approach, exemplified by Morgan v. Parkinson Howard Ltd, where the employee bore the burden of proving wrongful dismissal. Drawing support from the Supreme Court’s decision in Kobi v. Ghana Manganese Co. Ltd, the Court emphasised that Act 651 has fundamentally reshaped the law by shifting this evidential responsibility onto employers.
The practical effect is that once an employee raises a credible complaint about the circumstances of their termination, the employer must step forward with justification, both in substance and in process.
Fairness in Substance and Procedure
The Court went further to stress that fairness under the Labour Act is not a one-dimensional requirement. It has both a substantive and a procedural aspect.
It is not enough for an employer to simply assert misconduct. The employer must show that the allegation is well-founded and that the process leading to the decision was fair.
On the facts, the respondent fell short on both fronts. The appellant had not been formally confronted with allegations of fraud or dishonesty before the disciplinary process began. Yet, those very allegations became central to the decision to terminate her employment.
The Court found this to be a serious procedural flaw. By failing to clearly put these allegations to the appellant beforehand, the employer denied her a real opportunity to respond. In effect, she was taken by surprise.
The Court’s position makes it clear that disciplinary proceedings must be transparent. Employees must know the case they are expected to answer and must be given a genuine chance to defend themselves. Anything less compromises the fairness of the process.
No Cure in Notice Compliance
A key aspect of the High Court’s reasoning was that the employer had complied with section 17 of the Labour Act by giving the required notice. On that basis, it considered the termination justified.
The Court of Appeal rejected this line of reasoning. It clarified that compliance with notice provisions does not, on its own, make a termination fair where the employer relies on specific grounds such as misconduct.
In such cases, notice is not a safety net. The employer must still prove the alleged misconduct and demonstrate that the process was fair. Without this, the termination cannot stand, regardless of whether notice was given.
From Common Law to Statutory Protection
One of the more instructive aspects of the judgment is its reflection on how Ghanaian employment law has evolved.
Under the old common law “master–servant” framework, an employer could terminate employment for almost any reason, or even for no reason at all, provided notice was given. That position has now been significantly curtailed.
The Labour Act has introduced a rights-based framework that prioritises fairness. The Court made it clear that earlier authorities supporting termination at will must give way where they conflict with this statutory regime.
Implications for Employers and Practitioners
Employers must recognise that termination decisions are no longer insulated by managerial prerogative. They must be backed by credible evidence and a demonstrably fair process. Internal disciplinary systems, therefore, need to be properly structured, transparent, and consistently applied.
Equally important is clarity. Employees must be clearly informed of the allegations against them before any decision is taken. Vague or shifting accusations will not withstand scrutiny.
Finally, reliance on notice provisions alone is no longer sufficient in cases involving misconduct or other stated grounds
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Theresa Tweneboa v. Ghana Grid Company reinforces the idea in labour law that termination is not merely an administrative act. It is a legal process that must meet standards of fairness.
By placing the burden on employers to justify both the reason for termination and the procedure followed, the Court strengthens the protection afforded to employees. At the same time, it provides clear guidance on what is expected of employers.
