BANK OF WEST AFRICA LTD. vs. ACKUN [1961]DLSC2000

Date	1961-02-25
Suit No.	-
Citation No.	[1961]DLSC2000

SARKODEE-ADOO JSC

CRABBE JSC

AKUFO-ADDO JSC

VICTOR OWUSU FOR THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

NO APPEARANCE FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT

[1961]DLSC2000
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >

BANK OF WEST AFRICA LTD.

[SUPREME COURT]

[1963] 1 GLR 176

DATE: 25TH FEBRUARY, 1963.

</div>

COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;

VICTOR
OWUSU FOR THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

NO
APPEARANCE FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

</div>

SARKODEE-ADOO, CRABBE AND
AKUFO-ADDO JJ.S.C

</div>

&nbsp;

The two main questions raised in this appeal are, firstly, whether
or not the learned trial judge erred in law in rejecting the secondary evidence
of the defendants in the course of his judgment, such evidence having been admitted
without objection whereas similar evidence of the plaintiff was considered and
the judgment for the plaintiff based himself regarding the onus of proof placed
on the defendants in respect thereon; and secondly, whether or not the learned
trial judge misdirected of the additional or separate issue raised by them.

The trial was before Ollennu J. as he then was, and this appeal is
against his judgment delivered on the 20th November, 1961, in the High Court at
Accra.

The plaintiff’s claim was for the sum of £G600 being six months’
salary due to him as gratuity for services rendered as an employee of the of
defendants. The particulars of claim as amended at the trial were as follows:

(2) By an agreement between the defendant bank and its employees
in 1947 and as reviewed in 1948 it was agreed that an employee on the clerical
staff wihing to retire after 20 years’ service was to be given a gratuity equal
to six months’ salary. (3) Plaintiff at the time of his retirement had served
more than 20 years and was receiving a salary of £G100 per month.”

The defendants by way of defence to the plaintiffs particulars of
claim averred that although the plaintiff entered their service as a clerical
officer, at the time he left in 1960, he had attained acting managerial
position; they denied that the plaintiff retired from their service but said he
rather left unceremoniously and joined the Ghana Commercial Bank; that an
agreement was reached in 1947 with their employees that the gratuity to be
given to a clerical officer upon his retirement is the equivalent of three
months’ salary; and that in 1948 it was further agreed with staff
representatives by way of amendment that six months’ salary was to be paid to a
clerical officer retiring with their approval or permission. The defendants
therefore denied that the plaintiff was entitled to a gratuity of £G600 or to
any gratuity at all since he did not retire with their approval or permission
but rather left their service unceremoniously to join the Ghana Commercial
Bank.

By consent the issue set down for trial was, “Whether the
plaintiff was entitled to retire after twenty years’ service and receive
gratuity equal to six months’ salary or any gratuity at all.”

There was no dispute as to the terms of the agreement of 1947
(exhibit A) which provided, inter alia, in the following clause:

“Retirement Allowances—Clerical Staff. Three months’ salary to be
paid on retirement after a minimum of twenty years’ service; earlier retirement
through ill-health to receive special consideration.”

That this clause was amended in 1948 there is no doubt, but what
arose at the trial was the full import of the amendment, particularly with
reference to the condition relating to the “defendants’ approval or permission”
averred in the statement of defence.

“The said clause was amended in 1948, the amendment was
communicated to me, it was in writing. I have not got a copy of it. We have
applied to the defendant bank for a copy but they say they have not got it. By
the said amendment the three months’ salary was changed to six months’ salary
upon retirement.”