GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK PENSIONS ASSOCIATION (PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS) vs. GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK (DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS) [2003]DLCA7105

GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK PENSIONS ASSOCIATION (PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS) vs. GHANA CO... [2003]DLCA7105

Date	2003-02-12
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.: 399/2002
Citation No.	[2003]DLCA7105

MRS. ADINYIRA JA (PRESIDING)

MRS. AKOTO-BAMFOR JA

TWENEBOAH-KODUAH JA.

DR. W. C. EKOW DANIELS WITH ANDREW DANIELS FOR RESPONDENTS

ANTHONY NOVOR FOR APPLICANTS

[2003]DLCA7105
																																						<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 PENSIONS ASSOCIATION<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>CIVIL
APPEAL NO.: 399/2002 &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: 12TH FEBRUARY, 2003<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">COUNSEL:
<o:p></o:p>

<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">DR. W. C. EKOW DANIELS
WITH ANDREW DANIELS FOR RESPONDENTS<o:p></o:p>

<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">ANTHONY NOVOR FOR
APPLICANTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>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;<o:p></o:p>MRS.
ADINYIRA JA (PRESIDING), MRS. AKOTO-BAMFOR JA, TWENEBOAH-KODUAH JA.<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" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>ADINYIRA, JA <o:p></o:p>The
applicant in this case is seeking an order for a stay of execution of an order
for a writ of sequestration pending appeal. This order of a writ of
sequestration was made ex parte on 14th October 2002 in respect of a judgment
of 24th June 2002 entered by the Court of Appeal against the
defendant/applicant.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"in terms of relief 1 of the writ of
summons that is to say that by reason of the submission to judgment made by the
defendant bank before the trial judge on 22nd February 1999, it is hereby
declared that the plaintiffs are entitled to be paid their pension rights in
accordance with the defendant's Board Of Directors amendment decision of 27
February 1987". <o:p></o:p>This judgment of 24 June
2002 was made by the Court of Appeal upon the orders of the Supreme Court to
enable it to dispose of an appeal pending before it against the High Court
ruling of 20 December 2000 on the interpretation of the terms 'current basic
salary' and 'automatic adjustment of pension whenever salaries changed', which
had appeared in the decisions of the Board Of Directors of Defendant Bank
referred to in the judgment after trial. The Court of Appeal gave judgment on
11th July 2002.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is the contention of Counsel for the
applicant that in the said Court of Appeal judgment it was held that the
parties herein should negotiate the percentage to be used to determine the
pension based on the consolidated salary. But before this condition precedent
could be fulfilled the respondent applied for an order for a writ of
sequestration. They applied to the High Court to set it aside on the ground
that it was premature, but it was refused on 19th November 2002. The applicants
filed an appeal against this ruling on 21st November 2002. They then applied
for a stay of execution of the writ of sequestration but it was refused on 2nd
December 2002, and hence this present application before us. The sum of the
submissions by counsel for the respondent was that the order relied upon by the
applicant amounts to a revision of the judgment that they have submitted to.
The pronouncement of the Court of appeal being relied upon is a mere obiter and
a directive, which is not binding. <o:p></o:p>We have considered these
arguments and the affidavits before us and it is clear to us that in the
judgment of 11th July 2002 the Court of Appeal was considering 2 original
grounds of appeal and an additional ground of appeal filed before it. Ground 2
of the grounds appeal is the one relevant to the application before us. This
states:—<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"The learned High Court Judge erred when
he sought to impose on the defendant 50% of the consolidated salary as pension
to the plaintiff in the face of evidence that there has been an internal
mechanism and procedure used by the parties herein for reviewing pension
entitlements."<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In the judgment the court allowed the appeal
on this ground and ordered that the parties negotiate on the percentage to be
used. Therefore counsel for the respondents argument that the said order was
obiter cannot be accurate, having regard to the fact that it was a ground of
appeal canvassed before it and considered by the Court of Appeal. It is obvious
from the face of the record that an express order was made by the Court. Since
this order has not been complied with, the learned judge erred in granting the
order for the writ of sequestration. Consequently since there are serious
issues to be determined on appeal, we would exercise our discretion in favour of
the applicant. <o:p></o:p>The application for a stay
of execution of the order for the writ of sequestration is accordingly granted.
No order as to cost. <o:p></o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>