MATTHEW TAWIAH ARYEETEY vs. SOCIAL SECURITY AND NATIONAL INSURANCE TRUST (SSNIT)

The Plaintiff, a retired CEO and contributor to SSNIT's pension scheme for 332 months, claimed his pension benefits after retirement in February 2007. Despite submitting required documents and assurances from SSNIT, payment was delayed, causing financial hardship and loans. The Plaintiff sued SSNIT for payment of pension benefits, reimbursement of expenses, and interest. SSNIT contended the Plaintiff inflated his salary to increase pension benefits and refunded excess contributions. The High Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, ordering payment based on the inflated salary figures. SSNIT appealed but failed to comply with procedural rules, leading to the appeal being struck out and subsequent motions to relist being dismissed.

DOTSE JSC: The issue which calls for determination in this appeal as a preliminary point is whether the appeal lodged by the SSNIT, the Defendant/Appellant/Applicant/Appellant hereafter referred to as the Defendant against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 3rd May, 2011 as it were in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent/Respondent hereafter referred to as the Plaintiff is interlocutory or final. In this respect, I cannot but refer to the majority decision of this Court in the case of Opoku and others v Axes Co. Ltd [2011] I SCGLR 50, holding 2 where the majority Date-Bah, Baffoe-Bonnie and Aryeetey JJSC stated as follows:- “The common law, over the years, had recognized two alternative tests or divergent views in determining whether an order was final or interlocutory. The first test, called the “nature of the order approach”) Lord Alverstone CJ test), was whether or not the order as made had disposed of the rights of the parties; if it did, it was final; if ...