GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION vs. GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK [2004]DLCA6465

Date	2004-03-12
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO.: H3/123/2004
Citation No.	[2004]DLCA6465

OMARI-SASU J.A. [PRESIDING]

ANIM J.A.

KUSI-APPOUH (MRS.) J

[2004]DLCA6465
																																						<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<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>CIVIL
MOTION NO.: H3/123/2004&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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 MARCH, 2004<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">

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;&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="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
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">REASONS
FOR RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>OMARI-SASU, J.A.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;On February 27, 2004 the application by the
Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respon- dents-Applicants for an order&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
strike&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; out&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
dismiss&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; notice&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Appeal&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; filed&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
by&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;the<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Defendants-Appellants-Appellants-Respondents
on December 17th 2003 was unanimously granted as prayed but the reasons for the
ruling were deferred till today, They are now given hereunder.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The said Notice of Appeal of the Respondents
Bank was filed pursuant to a Ruling on review by this court dated November 27,
2003 <o:p></o:p>Two
grounds of appeal were filed by the Respondents. These are:—<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(3A)" The Learned Justices of the Court
of Appeal erred when they held that the<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;" first time "internal mechanism
" was raised. <o:p></o:p>"
Was in ground (b) of the grounds of appeal filed on behalf of the bank on 29th<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;" December, 2000, against the decision of
the High Court, Accra dated 20th<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;" December, 2000 in the face of
documentary evidence to the contrary in the appeal record"<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Our comment on this ground is that a through
search through all the processes filed by the litigants herein does not support
the contention of the Respondents Bank. The Applicants filed a supplementary
affidavit on January 19, 2004 in which they exhibited the statement of claim,
statement of Defence and summons for Directions filed in the court below and
nowhere in the Defence of the Respondents Bank did they plead that the Bank had
any "Internal mechanisms" which regulated conditions governing the
retirement of their employees.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;ORDER 19 RULE 4 OF THE HIGH COURT [CIVIL
PROCEDURE] THURES 1954 [LN.140A] <o:p></o:p>provides
[inter alia]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"Every pleading shall contain, and
contain only a statement in a summary form of the "maternal facts
(emphasis is ours) on which the party pleading relies for his claim or "
defence as the case me be ... "<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;An examination of the statement of Defence of
the Respondents Bank (as exhibited) shows that nowhere in their pleadings did
they plead the "internal mechanism" of the Bank as alleged. <o:p></o:p>The
Respondents Bank submitted to judgment in respect of the Applicants Relief 1 on
February 27, 1999 before the High Court and the said judgment was actually
entered by the Court of Appeal on June, 24, 2002. It is our considered view
therefore that in-as much-as the Respondent-Bank failed to plead the said
"internal mechanism" in their pleadings, they did not only breach Order
19 Rule 4 (supra) but they also did not qualify to use the said
"internal mechanism" as part of their case to merit consideration.
This court by its review ruling given by our brethren Brobbey. JSC; Twumasi and
Akoto-Bamfo, JJ.A have amply discussed this issue of "internal mechanism
in their unanimous ruling of November 27, 2003, We share their view that the so
called "internal mechanism" issue is an after-thought and a side wind
which must not be allowed to detract from the submission to judgment voluntarily
made by the Respondents-Bank. Our Supreme Court case of GWIRA vrs. STATE
INSURANCE CORPORATION [1991] 1 GLR.398 precludes the Respondents-Bank from
raising the issue of "internal mechanism" after they had submitted to
judgment.<o:p></o:p>The
second and last ground of Appeal of the Respondents Bank attacks the review
carried out by this court in the following words. "Since the
Plaintiffs-Respondents-Applicants<o:p></o:p>