GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION (PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS) vs. GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. (DEFENDANT/APPELLANTS) [2002]DLCA7104

GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION (PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS) vs. GHANA... [2002]DLCA7104

Date	2002-07-11
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.: 166/2000
Citation No.	[2002]DLCA7104

BROBBEY JA. (PRESIDING)

TWUMASI JA

AKOTO-BAMFOR JA.

[2002]DLCA7104
																																						<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" >GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>CIVIL
APPEAL NO.: 166/2000 &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; DATE:&nbsp;
11TH JULY, 2002<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">CORAM: &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;&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;<o:p></o:p>

</div><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:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;mso-border-between:1.5pt solid windowtext;
mso-padding-between:1.0pt">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>BROBBEY, J.A. <o:p></o:p>Six
people, suing for themselves and 764 others, originally instituted an action in
the High Court. All the plaintiffs were pensioners of the Ghana Commercial Bank
Limited.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Their initial claims were for the following reliefs;<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“ 1. A declaration that the plaintiffs are
entitled to be paid their pension rights in accordance with the defendant’s
Board of Directors Amendment decision of 27th February 1987. <o:p></o:p>2. Arrears of pension due plaintiffs
with interest at current bank rate with effect from 1st July 1989.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;3. Damages for breach of contract <o:p></o:p>4. An order of perpetual injunction
restraining defendant bank from transferring any of its assets or changing its
legal identity or ownership of itself by way of sale, assignment or divestiture
in any form until plaintiffs’ entitlements would have been paid and concrete of
Directors Amendment decision of 27th February 1987. Arrears of pension to the
plaintiffs as from 1st July 1989. The rate of interest to be subject to
agreement.”. <o:p></o:p>The plaintiffs
subsequently abandoned reliefs three and four on the writ of summons. <o:p></o:p>When the trial commenced,
counsel for the defendant bank submitted to judgment on relief one. The
plaintiffs filed judgment after trial in which they stated that the trial court
had “adjudged that the defendant bank should pay the plaintiffs all their
pension rights in accordance with the defendant’s Board of Directors Amendment
decision of 27th February 1987. Arrears of pension to the plaintiffs as from
1st July 1989. The rate of interest to be subject to agreement.”<o:p></o:p>At the trial court, the
defendant bank submitted to only relief one. Counsel for the defendant
indicated that he had instructions to attempt settlement with counsel for the
plaintiffs on the question of interest. In order to arrive at the correct
interest, the parties decided to go into accounts. The defendant bank filed a
statement of accounts setting out what in its view was due to each member of
the plaintiffs’ Association. The parties failed to agree on the accounts. <o:p></o:p>The next main move in the
case was that the trial judge appointed as referee Mr. W. K. Nketia of the
Accra High Court Registry to “go into accounts with both parties.” That was
done. The referee submitted his report.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Following the report, the plaintiffs filed an
application in the High Court praying for the definitions of the expressions
“current basic salary” and “automatic adjustment of pensions whenever salaries
change.” The trial court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants
appealed to the Court of Appeal against that ruling and the plaintiffs too
cross appealed against it.<o:p></o:p>It was then discovered
that the trial court did not enter formal judgment on the admitted relief. The
Court of Appeal ruled that since no formal judgment was entered by the trial
court, there was no judgment to be enforced. It ordered that the case should be
sent back to the High Court to be heard on its merits.<o:p></o:p>An application was filed
in the Supreme Court for an order of certiorari to quash the ruling of the
Court of Appeal and for another order of mandamus to compel the Court of Appeal
to rehear the matter before it in accordance with the Court of Appeal Rules,
1997 (C.I.19), rules 31 and 32. The Supreme Court granted the applications and
ordered that this Court should enter the judgment that the trial court failed
to enter and proceed to dispose of the appeal as filed by the parties in this
court. At the last sitting here, this court entered judgment as ordered. <o:p></o:p>We now proceed to dispose
of the appeal in the terms of the arguments filed by the parties before us. The
defendant bank shall hereafter be described as the appellant and the plaintiffs
shall be described as the respondents.<o:p></o:p</main>