[2005]DLSC2406 • May 20, 2005 • Supreme Court •
ERNEST ADOFO AND ANOTHER vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ANOTHER
Plaintiffs, former employees of Ghana Cocoa Board retrenched in 1994, claimed their terminal benefits were withheld under PNDC Law 125, which indemnified the Board from liability and barred court actions related to employment termination. They challenged the constitutionality of PNDC Law 125, asserting it violated the 1992 Constitution, particularly access to courts.
read moreDR. DATE-BAH, J.S.C: This is the unanimous judgment of the Court. The Plaintiffs issued a Writ on 2nd March 2004 seeking an enforcement of the Constitution by: 1. “A declaration that by the proper interpretation of the Article 36(1) and (2) of the 1992 constitution PNDC law 125 ceased to exist or to have any effect upon the coming into effect of the 1992 constitution of the Republic of Ghana. 2. A declaration that said PNDC law 125 is inconsistent with the provision of the discriminate (sic) 1992 constitution in so far as it tends to decrements (sic) against certain categories of workers in Ghana and within the CocoBod. 3. A declaration that the said P.N.D.C. law 125 is unconscionable and must be removed from the statute books of Ghana.” The Writ was expressed to be issued by three Plaintiffs, namely, Ernest Adofo, Paul K Sekley and Samuel Ntiful “for themselves and on behalf of 70 other workers of the Cocobod retrenched in September 1994”. In the accom...