GHANA TEXTILE PRINTING CO LTD vs. ANKUJEAH AND OTHERS [2000]DLCA320

Date	2000-07-06
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2000]DLCA320

TWUMASI JA

WOOD JA

BROBBEY JA

J K AGYEMANG (WITH HIM AYITEY) FOR THE APPELLANT.

E K JONES-MENSAH (WITH HIM AGBENUVOR) FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2000]DLCA320
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">GHANA TEXTILE PRINTING CO LTD<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">ANKUJEAH AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL. ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000]
2 GLR 473<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">

</div>COUNSEL:J K AGYEMANG (WITH HIM
AYITEY) FOR THE APPELLANT.E K JONES-MENSAH (WITH HIM
AGBENUVOR) FOR THE RESPONDENT.___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________CORAM:WOOD, BROBBEY, TWUMASI JJA___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Wood JA. <o:p></o:p>Following
the restructuring of the defendant appellant company (hereinafter referred to
as the appellants) in 1994, the plaintiff-respondents (hereinafter referred to
as the respondents) were declared redundant and paid severance benefits in
accordance with the prevailing collective agreement (exhibit A). Each
respondent therefore became entitled to: “Two months consolidated basic pay for
each year of service, effective 1 January 1991 to the date of redundancy.” However,
contending that the awards were void, unlawful and of no legal effect in that
they violated the clear, mandatory provisions of the Labour (Amendment) Decree,
1969 (NLCD 342), the respondents filed suit in the High Court, Tema claiming
the following reliefs:<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">“(1)
Payment of each plaintiff’s severance compensation with effect from the date
each plaintiff commenced work with the defendant company as employed up to 31
December 1990. <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">(2)
Interest at prevailing bank rate from 1 February 1994 to date of payment. <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">(3)
An order directing the defendants to immediately negotiate the severance
compensation with the plaintiffs for the period of service of each plaintiff
before 1 January 1991, failing which the Honourable Court could itself
determine a fair and just compensation for the period concerned.”<o:p></o:p>The
appellants raised two matters in defence to the substantive claim. These are
contained in their original and unamended statement of defence. Firstly, that
the quantum of severance award is not fixed by statute, but was a matter of
negotiation. And consequently, as the respondent were all duly paid in
accordance with the negotiated provisions of the existing, valid collective
agreement, they are estopped from any further claims secondly, that claim was
statute-barred.<o:p></o:p>The
learned trial judge however, found the claims proved and entered judgment in
favour of all the respondents on all the claims sought, together with costs of
¢10 million. In this appeal, as many as ten grounds were urged upon us, six of
which (original grounds (A), (B) and (C) and additional grounds (1), (2) and
(3)) were argued together. My own view is that the latter, ie the additional
grounds are a duplication of the original grounds of appeal. Therefore, rather
than reproduce all six grounds of appeal, I would under the circumstances quote
in extenso only the additional grounds (1), (2), (3) which in my humble
estimation is the more comprehensive of the two:<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">