Banda v Cilcon Limited (Civil Cause 286 of 1987) [1991] MWHC 8 (23 October 1991)

2 0 HOV \99\ IN TIIE lllGII COURT Coram: , , .. BA NDA, J. A Chi rwa, Cou nsel for the Plaintiff Ms aka, Counsel for the Defendant 1 Ka l i mbuka Gama, Court Clerk Longwe, Cou r t Reporter ';, - JUDGMENT: Th e p l aintiff is suing the defendan t for wrongful dismissal and false imprisonm ent. There ls also a claim for overt ime and leave pay. I t is alleged that by an agreement made in 1974 .. I t It is further alleged that i s a 1 s o a l t e r n a t i v e 1 y a l l e g e d i t w a s a n i mp l i e d t e rm o f t h e s a i d a g re em e n t t he defen dant agreed to emplo y the plaint i f f who agreed to serve as the defendant I s acco unts cl e r.k at a s a l a r y o f not ~ . ~ l ess than K185.00 per month. :~ : i t was an express term of the said agreement that the emp~ : ~ loy~ent o f the plaintiff woul d continue unt il terminated -~ ½ by a 3 - mo n th s no t i c e . , · e~ .. ,. ~; . ; ,. t h a t t he} ,, _;: · , p l a i ·n t i f f I s em~ l o y me n t w o ~ I d be d e t e rm i n a b 1 e on l y by a · • -. J.: · :. ·: · , " ·";l<J: .. . reason ab l e not 1 c e and . · · _:• i ~ • · • n o t i c e i s 3 mo n t h s • _I t . w~uld appear that a_s a res.ult .:~f the agr.eemen t ~•-- ~l(<_. :: :: ~r; · . · - ~ ~ .. _ . _ : ,,Jt~-,·'-: ·' · · . t h e p l a 1 n t 1 f f s t a r t e d t o w o r k f o r t h e d e f._~ n d a n t s s om e t l me . _. •: in Februa r y 1974 until 20th January, 1984." wh en it is all e -• · g e d t h e d e f e n d a n t s u n l a w f u I l y ~ a n d i n b re 4 c h o f of employm ent · dismissed the plaintiff with i mmediate effect an d that the defendants , refused to_ al low the pl a in~~ ~-i ·. tiff to re ma i" n in their employment. -~·-t• .. . '. by t ~ i s a l I e g ~ d brea c h of agreement the pl a i n t i ff had be e n J.h ~/-... deprived o f h1s sala r y and that he had suff_e red conseque n_t.~J~:·.~:-.~·:. loss and d amage. l t 1 s c o ntended th ~,t a reason ab l e It rs a lleged that t h e t e rm s , -· t -; ·. f t h a t _. .• -~-4 ~; \ i,..: :~j. , •. "J · - i: . t . , ,:. ... ' J • . .•· _\- ., }'J- l•l ~. · • '.' ~)~!~. ; : ;_ t :·. ,-.: . ·, 2 • • .••• \ Jf\r. ;.). . ~ . -t:·., ' ~. -- I . .:. t l ::frr . . . __ J.rr · · · :..; l , ~>; :".~ ~~- '!, . . . . . . . ' . /{- : ' . • • • •' -(: ~~ i' :~. . ~·: '. . t . . / ~: ~ ~ .. n I t w o u 1 d . a pp e a r ~ h a t for so me t. t me . :,the defend a ~ t: : }!} f company Head Office was 1n Blantyre and op 0er ated from •'1: : :·!::;· itl, .. -- -~ premises which were adjacent .to/ the premis_es used by M/s ... -~· 'f-7 !.< S . R • N i c ho 1 a s Con s t r u c t i on Company he re i n a ft e r c a 1 l e d · :: ~- ff). Nicho l as Co. ·. sut at some point 1 in - 1978 t ne He ad Off lee :.:~-i- of the de f e ndant co mp any moved to Li longwli' l eavint• tnly' ·,, .. r. • Jl·:}, ,'l,_ . ~.l,itt,,·1f the accoun t s section in Blantyre. · 1t woul'd a ppear that ':~ ...... -0-~,t, the accoun ts section of the defendant co mp.any operated · in the sam e building that was occup i ed by : Ni cholas Company.;~t~~ " .--'.,;- . 1\..,.: .. J·,>. ~f'r' ' .. ·_ ..,$~~ ~ :>f-; -~; It is not disputed on the evidence be fore ma that '·~;;J".'f..",:·-: . t >ti- : ·_ Cilcon an d Nicholas c ompanies are two separat e companies and i n 1 aw are separate 1 e g a 1 person a 1 i ties . There was a · , ·~:''. ·/ · · · suggest i on and i t was not d i s put e d that C l 1 co n l s a subs 1 - :-;;:-: . diary co mpany of Ni c holas and that the Financ ial Contto l ler ~~, fnr the two compan i es was a Mr. Stewart. .· the posit i o n in law is that Cilcon and Nicho las are two separate c ompanies. ' Be that as it may, . . ( : • , Th e evidence before this Court is th at on 20th January , 1984 the plaintiff wa s called into the office of Mr. Stewar t where he was told that there was a t heft in Nicholas office involving K5,000.00. He was asked if he knew a ny t h ing about that and that h i s re p ly was that he did It was his evi-. not know a nything about the a l leged theft. dence tha t at about 8.00 a.m. on the same da y he was ta ken out of Mr . Stewart's office and was locked up in another office ne ar a switchboard. Hi s evidence was that it was Mr, Stewart who locked him up. The plaintiff ' fu rther stated that as he was being taken to be locked U. P Mr. Stewart told him tha t at Chichi ri, and that at abou t · 10.00 a.m. ~on the same day he was ta ken out from the · office in which.~ he was locked an~ ' was hande d over to a Mr. Thun ga who took :~im tq the Po l lce.-·•t,.' . .. The plain tiff · remained in cus t ody from 20"'th January 19 84 to °?~;;,'j/J I N 1 9 8 6 h e w a s p r o ~ e c u t e d a n d w a ~ c on .. -.?~t t1 2 3 rd Se p t em be r 1 9 8 4 • v i ct e d fo r the a l I e g e d theft before the C:h l e f Res l den t Mag t ~, }; ~-,.\ trate ' s Court and he was sent e nced to a term of imprisonmeht l\.·:/.5 of 8 year s. · His conviction wa s, however.quas hed on appeal to:'t- .. :.'_\- t he H i g h Court • t he ma t ter would be reported to ~he Police Division _ r . 1 . !~:' · · -1 ·t?} _ .:f. r · The e~idence which wa s the basis t of the criminal "l-)~ft./> t h e p 1 a i n ~ i f f s hows \ ~ a t t h e t h e f t re l ~: -:-j \;: +</ p r o s e c u t i on a g a i n s t ted to t he pur.chase of · timber by Nicholas Com pa ny an d the ::: . ~~ --• e.xhibits whic h were produced · at the crimina l t r i a l show that ,,,:_:.~h, all the docum,nts involved re l ated to Nicho l as Company. Hone t . ~f- • -~1~i ·,?]1· of it con cerned Ci I con. . · !,' • • · - I t w:a~ the platntiff 1 ~:·· evidenc~ 't ha t .o c c~ sio·~'~lly: f ~·/~{/: Mr • S t e w a r t w o u 1 d a s k h i m t o w o r k : o n N l c ~ o 1 a s p a p e r s . a n d -~ ·1f) ·~ , : . t~at exhi bit _02 were some of t he papers on wh ich the plal,,;.t!,;w ., · There can be no doubt therefore that th e ·al t .. e.• ~, ;L: tiff work ed.- ·1 i n lit y j u d gm en t , ' l t ~ u S t ij :- .( · g e d t h e f t be asu me d that in whatevijr St ewart or any other em p l oyee did :-. ·_·, !Hchb la~ '· .. : in c on nec tion with the al l ege d theft was ~o n behalf c.1f t:) ,;'J i / ,;: ·>J,;:-'. ; 'j ,.·-. . i n v o 1 v e d N i c h o l a s Co • a n d , ! J }i j r t · \l ~· ,(r ~ - ~i '· it · . . .: t,ii ... ,\·_'·-,. -·. :· l f ', t''-• • 1\ · ' ' .,-;~ ~-l:' · · .· ~,At;f ,t:,_ , .. 1! .: ,: . ... . ~ , . , • ' ' .. ··$' :-=- . · Tt~\ ;_i: : - :' ·•· .. I\ i ' j I l t ~ . ~l , • ; • f • . , . . . .. ~ • r .i; ~ J' ) -~ . • i n s o f a r a s ! th e a l 1 e g e d -1~-l:-:.,. : • .!. '" ' ~ , , t ~! ~ ,; ~• '"• ' .. , • .i . ' . • . .. , J~ ·'"" . ,. \·~:t'~: ~ .,;~. Company. It i·s true that Stewa r t was the ;~ln an clal Cont- : ~ lJ ~~ ' r o 1 l e r f o r b o t h c om p a n l e s b u t theft by t he p 1 a i n ti f f w a s c oncer n e d the r et c an be no doubt · .if~ ; ~ \ .' that whate ve r . he did was done in his c a pacity a s Flnanclali-- ··.,J:.:i•- . Ib} mu st _be,remem-. ·,~· ,H ;'.,·'.; Controller o r ~employee of Nicho_las 1Co. bered, .. as I have already said earl l:er ·1n !,.is j udgment\ •• •i -~- __ :f :·)i/'. that a su bst arlt i al, pa r t of the ·~efendants ,, op er ations had i': ~ f /t:f.:_,-~ moved to L i l on gw e a n d th a t on l y · the a cc o u ~ s se c t I on rem a l -.. 1 S"' :';-<. . : · · _ . If: t _ :· , n e d i n B l a nt yr e • Mr • Thu n g a • the ma n who : p h y s i c a 1 1 y took the plaint i f f 1to the Police; was emplo yed • .' at t hat time, · .:!~1 :~ , -. :~ by Nichol as Co. There is evidence and it :ts not disputed ~, .( 1; · '.~:·,· t h a t belonged t o Ni;cholas Co. altho ugh e·arl f er ,' on to C i I con • t h e v e h i c 1 e w h i c h c o n v e ye d t he p l a f n ti f f t o Po 1 I c e i t had belonged -·.;·-, ~· : ~:, .': , . i '. ;-, . : · ,. i · . - i • : ··., It s eems to me that on the ;evijence be fore me, and · in so far j udgment that In those · .,. I am satisfi e d therefore th a t I ·must admit that I thought at on e stage, in it is over whelming evidence, there ;ca n be no doubt that Hr. Stewart an d Mr ~ Thunga in repo r ting t he plai ntiff to the Police wer e dqing so on behalf of Nicholas Co. because the theft invo lved property belong i ng to Nichola s Co. circumstan ces, therefore, it i s clear in my the proper party who should ha ve been sued sh ould have been Nicholas Co. in so far as the f alse imprisonm ent claim is concerned . view of th e overwhelming evide nce pointing to the fact that Nicholas Co mpany was the compl a inant in the t heft case, that counse l fo r the plaintiff woul d consider amen ding the parties to the action. I thou ght that at tha t point it had become so obvlous that a wrong party had b~en sued but that was never to b,-e. as the cla im for false impriso nment is concer ned, I find that a wro ng party was sued an d the plaintiff must there- fore 'fail i n his claim for fal s e imprisonment . However, as . · , ... · . f a r a s t h e . C 1 a.1 m f O r w r Ong f u l d i s m i s s a 1 f s C On C e r n e d I beli ev e t he co~rect party to be sue;d was Cl Ic o n. ). ·· •·· i; · ~J -~-~\·: As I ti~ve al ready foun d, earlier in} th i s judgment Nicholas a nd Cilcon are two di s tinct legal r- pe r sonalitfes lnl~;~·-f :.,_ the · eyes o f th_e law. The only basis alleged -f or dismissing ~,' ,.;-!',., the ·plaint iff !was that he had absconded hims el f from his ;:~.\_;~,-.-: · duty. But the · evtde nce clearl y'. shows that· Mr . Stewart knew·~~~\!_ ; '•.~:. why the p 1 a inti ff ha d not r epo r ted for dut.f e s . His absence •:-:.~ , .·: · from duty ~ a s ln o t de 1 i berate o r::~ v o 1 u n tar y ~ n d i n deed w ~ ~ n _'.!.:.</ } # : '.the plain t iff .'~as able to go_to: his; work ~e d id so on -, .,,,~;/,_~,.· . . the first avatiable opport unit y bu ~ he was. not allowed to .- ~>\ '. · ·.· resume hi s duties. What just c aus~ did Cf-Ic on have in dls-·.z,~ ; f '_.,_: missing th e plaintif f from wor k_? The case) o f National' Coa,1 1:~_/ri.: Bo a rd v • Ga 1 l e y ( 1 9 5 8) 1 A 1 1 E. R • P:. 9 0 w a s· c t t e d to me by :. -!,:: · ' _,.· . . . Mr. Msaka . judgment that cas:e can be di stinguished f r om t h e 1 n s t an t c a s e . · I n Ga 1 I e y ' s c a s e t h e re w a s , by -t he • ~ -!..'. ': · _ , de f e n d a n t , a de 1 i be r a t e r ~ f u s a I t o . w o r k l n c l e a r c on t r a v en - ~~ if-. : \ · tlon of a n agreement which bound him. As · 1 sa id the plain- :.\;,,~<~ :' if , ; >- ;_~ t i f f d i d n o t d ~ 1 l be r a t e 1 y re f u s e to w o r k . it: I n de e d h e h a d ' s h own h i s w i l l' ~ n g n e s s t o ""° r k w h e n h e w a s a b I e t o d o s o • · ; '; .~'i · - · .. ··.·s- r lfl. imy ,i' t ! ' · .· · • J • \ I I .-, i 4 / ... . . '!. • 1 ' , , ',; ;. . t . l f h_ , . ' J: :i . :_ .~.( ·~ 4!• t: .4 )1. r. • ,.,, ; . .- 'l ~-~ : i; , ·4 :}: . ' ·.: . •· -);_ I f ,.. ' . • ,,. . ·i~-: :.: . . · :~ ~ · ,·· ; ~- . ·'· :.. ~:."l ,_ .. ....... . ( .:.-- .. .. , /•,} ' wh~ch has turn~d out w~s never_ ~-roved_. ' ' . . . . ·· , • - 1 : ~ • • • t ~ ~ l , · b.. .. ,.., ... . - ,.i. C- r:: ·· · . .. , : .. ·-. ' .; i r . .. '1i i~••', l . ., the de fend a n t <i om pan y to d i s m 1 s s ~ t ~ e p I a i ~ i f f when none . of the i r proper ti e s were i n v o l v e d 1 n the a 1 e g e d ' theft ._xi ! i ·:J'·: · ·· >J.: ~~ - -~..'.- ··· · I am s a tis f I ed hher~ fore that. t1,'.tre was no· iJu st caus~ f.or • ·::t:~n;"~ :' ; ~~ ~~< \.· , , l))~:,:}.. ./: ·. · '.•1·-i~Sf~:\ f ,. k' ·- .i'-f:~-~-· -. In the {plaintiff'. s pleadings it . ts alleged.'t~at' ,the\ emp I oyme n t ag rqement had an ex pr _e s s •prov i :~ 1-on for f.3 . men th s ' !-~ './h . .-_·.: ·,, · not i c e • No e v f den c e w a s adduced'' to : prove t th a t such agree -· - .-o/1· ·'~•- .. , · • ment provided t9r 3 months' notice. In th~/ alternatlve ·tt;°'~i&tj;; ~; · was alleged that there was an notice would be ! 3 months. that the pl a i n t i ff rec e i v e d the s a 1 a r y month 1 y and - Jr-.._;_ absence of an ¢xpress stipulation as to a period of notice _. l:.' Sect i on 1 0 of the Em p 1 o y men t Act prov i des that re a son ab 1 e · notice in such !circumstances would be one month's notice and ··.>< I so find. lmpl ied term ~that reasonable " v~tJf. . . · The evidence befor~ this court is-~;i.!l:·-;:~.· i n the :. . -~ _ ., , -~'1 • ! • -~. . • ,f : 1 ~ . ~ , , ; -~ I I . ,- • • • • • • ' . ' I would now like to consider the claim for overtime : There have been som~ contradictions between • and leave pay . what is alleged in the pleadings and the evidence adduced. For instance, if the allegation in the pleadings is correct that the plaintiff started work on~ salary of K185.00 a month, it would appear that that salary has not changed since 1974 because the evidence was that at the time the plaintiff was being dismissed his salary was in fact K185.00 per month. No evidence, in my judgment, was adduced to prove how the · sums of K155.00 for overtime pay and K693.75 for leave pay were calculated , and to be fair to counsel for the plaintiff he conceded that there was no evidence to prove those two claims and, acc~rdingly, I find that they h~ve not been sub~ _ · stantiated. : ~ ~ .' ;. ' ; I · _ ·. ~ - , ~ · .. ~ 1 Ac c or d l n g l y , t h e re w i 1 l . · be j u d gm en,· f or t he p 1 a i n t i (f '" .• . . in the sum of ~185.00 be i ng sala_ry tor · one ·mont~•s l ~otice . ~n·d ~.i- 7_., · ,· · . ' . ,,> , 11~.~; .. costs of . these proceedings. Prono~h~ed In open Co~rt th Is 23r/~ay ~f ~~to~:~·; J~:Jf . :ti: ~. T)ii~1:~ _ _t;· . -. -.~ -k~:-j}'ft(~1- • ~~~~'it,,~. I fp. '-:.'•' : :. ; ·• ~ '. ~~~/1:;-L~~ • -~~,¥-~ " .... • ,., · , ~ · . , ·: ii,.: ..-: ;.: i; · · nt1_'7~-- ~~---~. •"- ., ... · )' I · ' ,0 • ~¥~ · · t • • \:' , 1991 at _ Bla~t~rr.- . Ji · t· . . . ~ · . · . : · ' · :-;, · ,. -~ - .. . l /&.-.:::~::> an a :P, ' ·;1:: . '.· - : . ----- ~-; -,- ~ . ti '·"·· { IN CHAMBERS AT 2.00 P M ) -.~·· ·. ~~~~T n~ . --_. : ~:~>~~~:~: ~ i :.--: :~ , c~~~t~~d \ toG:;:!~~m~~~.{=in;d!m~~!·~~~~~d t~~:~~~~~tn:~11~~; 1 on - the claim f:or unlawful· disml 1ssa1!. I on!ly ·grant~d hltn '~a fru m..::·1,;:~"·~~- of .. K185.00 as ; triotlce pay. ': He· was in custo9y from ·- 20th ·· Janua'ty[I-_,!.'•.}.} •The plal'n.tiff wa.~ out o f : employmer(~ ;i/,~ . .'.'.. 19 8 4 to Septe,m.ber, 18th. . J ~ >.:.-'1. for 8 mon ths.q) In the circumstances I wl 1 P g r ant h i m gen e ral .1:. V · ~-. ··i .:: · · . '·· · ' R A B d l · . ·· BANDA . J~~ -·· , , · . ' ' ·\ · • · • · ~ -- · I-' ~ • , t, . ,. "'_.•. ~: " . ~ . ~ • ~ •i ' • . • • ~ _ • I d a ma g e s i n t h , ; s um o f K 1 5 O O ~ 5::S o t ! c e p a y f o r o n e mo n t h • ~ . , fi.'