S. C. OMANE-MENSAH & ANOTHER AND GHANA COCOA BOARD [2000]DLCHRAJ5839

Date	2000-09-18
Suit No.	Our Ref: CHRAJ/122/99/1811
Citation No.	[2000]DLCHRAJ5839

C. A. OPOKÚ

[2000]DLCHRAJ5839
																																						<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:#00B050">S. C. OMANE-MENSAH &amp; ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>(COMPLAINANTS)<o:p></o:p>AND<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:#00B050">GHANA COCOA BOARD<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>(CHRAJ)<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">

Our Ref: CHRAJ/122/99/1811&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 18/09/2000<o:p></o:p>

</div>COMMISSIONER:<o:p></o:p>C.
A. OPOKÚ DEP. CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER FOR: COMMISSIONER<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">REVIEW
DECISION<o:p></o:p>

</div>INTRODUCTION<o:p></o:p>The
Complainants were employees of the respondent. In 1990 they were interdicted
for their alleged involvement in the theft of stationery in the respondent's
stationery store. They were subsequently arraigned before a Court, which at the
end of the trial acquitted and discharged them in October, 1995. Upon mutual
agreement they were paid the following to bring their services with the
respondent to an end.<o:p></o:p>1.
Total salary arrears from October, 1990 to June 1996.<o:p></o:p>2.
Gratuity<o:p></o:p>3.
One month's salary in lieu of notice of termination of appointment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>ORIGINAL DECISION<o:p></o:p>In
spite of the assertion by the respondents that whatever amount was paid to them
was in respect of their outstanding salaries only, the Commission found that
they had indeed collected arrears of salary for no work done between 1990 and
1996, their gratuity, and a month's salary in lieu of notice. Accordingly the
Commission decided as follows:<o:p></o:p>1.
that the Complainants had been paid all their terminal benefits.<o:p></o:p>2.
that by so doing the contract of service had been terminated, and since it is
not a contract of servitude, the respondent could not be compelled to reinstate
the Complainants.<o:p></o:p>3.
that the constructive termination of the appointment of the Complainants in
1996 which was given expression in 1999 is lawful.<o:p></o:p>APPLICATION FOR REVIEW<o:p></o:p>