JUDGMENT
DR. DATE-BAH, J.S.C.
This case, with respect, is based on a flawed conception of the nature of a contract of employment. A contract of employment is not necessarily a contract till the retirement age. As Wuaku JSC said in Nartey-Tokoli v. Volta Aluminium Company [1987-88] 2 GLR 532 at p. 545, a contract of employment, though it may be for an indefinite period, does not mean life employment. Claim (d) endorsed on the Plaintiff’s writ of summons is, however, based on the fallacious conception that there is an expectation interest in a contract of employment till the age of retirement. The claim is in the following terms:
“an order for the payment to plaintiff of all salaries, increments and all other benefits for the remaining six (6) years of service with defendant company.”
A contract of employment is clearly terminable. Even if it is terminated wrongfully, that does not give the aggrieved party the right to be paid salary till his retirement age. The Supreme Court held in Narte…