FAWKES vs. ACCRA BREWERY LTD. [1980]DLHC1580

Date	1980-05-19
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLHC1580

EDWARD WIREDU J.

DE PAUL FOR THE APPLICANTS.

S. K. BOAFO FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1980]DLHC1580
																																						<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" >FAWKES <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ACCRA BREWERY LTD.<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1980] GLR 489<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
19
MAY 1980<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DE PAUL FOR THE APPLICANTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an application brought under the Court of Appeal Rules, 1962 (L.I. 218), s. 10
(4) as amended by the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Rules, 1969 (L.I. 618), for
an extension of time within which to appeal against the findings of the
Opare-Addo Committee of Inquiry into labour unrests at the breweries, i.e. Tata
Brewery Limited, Kumasi Brewery Limited, Accra Brewery Limited and Guinness
(Ghana) Limited. The said committee was established under the Committee of
Inquiry (Labour Unrest at the Breweries) Instrument, 1979 (E.I. 30).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
leading to the presentation of this application may be briefly stated as
follows: On or about 2 May 1979, the erstwhile Supreme Military Council
appointed a committee of inquiry into the circumstances leading to labour
unrests in the country’s four breweries. This committee is what has come to be
commonly referred to as the Opare-Addo Committee of Inquiry. The sole member of
this committee was Mr. Opare-Addo, then a circuit court judge but now retired.
Section 3 of E.I. 30 of 1979 provides:<o:p></o:p>“3. The
terms of reference of the Committee shall be as follows:—<o:p></o:p>(a) to
investigate any complaints made by the managements of Tata Brewery Limited,
Kumasi Brewery Limited, Accra Brewery Limited and Guinness (Ghana) Limited
against their respective employees not to return to work after the recent
strike; (b) to investigate any complaints made by such employees against the
decision of their employers; (c) to state in respect of each such employee
whether having regard to the evidence before the Committee and the conduct of
such employee in connection with the said strike as approved before the
Committee, the refusal by his employer to re-engage such employee was
justified; (d) to submit its findings to the Commissioner responsible for
Labour giving reasons for such findings and making such recommendations as it
considers necessary.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
before the court show that the committee’s report and the Government’s White
Paper on it were published on or about 16 November 1979. It appears that all
the findings and recommendations of the committee were accepted by the
government.<o:p></o:p>The
applicants herein are 29 ex-employees of the respondents who claim that they
had been dismissed because of adverse findings made by the committee against
them. Their complaint is that:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“4. That
we made persistent attempts to have the committee publish its findings but we
failed until some time in November 1979, on or about 16 November 1979, the
Government White Paper came out pronouncing the publication of, and acceptance
by government of the committee’s findings.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
support of the application, Mr. De Paul, counsel for the applicants, submitted
that by article 198 (2) of the Constitution, 1979, the proper forum to present
the application was this court. Learned counsel referred to the affidavit in
support of the application and submitted that it had been difficult for the
applicants to come by copies of the report and the White Paper. He said this
had accounted for the delay in lodging the appeal within the statutory three
months’ period authorised. Learned counsel therefore invited the court to
exercise its discretion in granting the application for extension of time to
enable the rights of the applicants to be decided on appeal.<o:p></o:p>Opposition
to the application was contained in an eight-paragraph affidavit filed on
behalf of the respondents. The relevant paragraphs of which are:<o:p></o:p>