ISAAC K KOBI & 24 OTHERS VS. GHANA MANGANESE COMPANY LTD. [2004]DLCA6733

Date	2004-06-24
Suit No.	HI/70/2004
Citation No.	[2004]DLCA6733

TWUMASI J.A. [PRESIDING]

ANINAKWA J.A.

QUAYE J.A.

G. F. GARDINER—FOR APPELLANTS.

R.S. AGBENOTO—FOR RESPONDENTS.

[2004]DLCA6733
																																						<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" >ISAAC K KOBI &amp; 24 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>{PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS}<o:p></o:p>VS.<o:p></o:p>GHANA MANGANESE COMPANY LTD.<o:p></o:p>{DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENT}<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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">

HI/70/2004&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; &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: 24TH JUNE, 2004<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>G. F. GARDINER—FOR APPELLANTS. <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">

R.S. AGBENOTO—FOR
RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>TWUMASI J.A. [PRESIDING], ANINAKWA J.A., QUAYE J.A. <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="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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>QUAYE,
J.A. <o:p></o:p>Before the 19th May,1999,
the plaintiffs/appellants herein enjoyed the rights and privileges and
performed the obligations that attached to their respective positions as
employees of the defendant/respondent company. <o:p></o:p>The said date however
witnessed a monumental shift in their relationship and drastically plunged them
into an uncertain and shaken future with their employers. <o:p></o:p>The significant event of
19th May, 1999 was a demonstration or strike action embarked upon by the
workers. The actual event has been variously described and qualified. While the
workers of the defendant company described it as peaceful, the defendant
company in official terms classified it as violent. In the wake of the
demonstration, the respondent company took two significant steps. In the first
place they closed down the mines; and then after a space of three and a half
weeks or there about caused the workers, or in any event, those of them who
were disposed to continue to be in the employment of the respondent company to
execute a "declaration of renewal of confidence and loyalty to
GMC/MANAGEMENT" as a condition for re-opening of the mine. The said
declaration form which was dated on 31st May, 1999 was tendered in evidence in
the trial court as exhibit 'D'. On the same date, a circular notice had been
issued, once again emanating from the respondent company, and judging by its
contents, a deduction can be made that it preceded or was meant to forerun
exhibit 'D'. For ease of reference and effect, exhibit 'C' is hereby reproduced
in extract only. <o:p></o:p>"CIRCULAR. 31st May, 1999.
Following the meeting held between the Ghana Mines Workers Union, the Senior
Staff Association Executives and Management of the Ghana Manganese Company
Limited, at the request of the Ministry of Employment and Social Welfare, on
31st May, 1999, Management wishes to inform all workers that it has rescinded
its decision to close down the company and dismiss all the workers. <o:p></o:p>Consequently, workers who wish to
continue their employment with the Ghana Manganese Company Limited and are
prepared to abide by the Rules and Regulations of the company are advised to
collect declaration forms between 10.00 hours and 17.00 hours each day from the<o:p></o:p>District Labour Office at Tarkwa,
whose office is temporarily located at the Nsuta Police Station. <o:p></o:p>All such completed declaration forms
should be returned through the District Labour Office for consideration not
later than 10.00 hours on Thursday, 3rd June 1999." <o:p></o:p>Exhibit 'C' was signed by
the resident Director of the respondent company. Evidence led before the trial
Court by the Resident Director on 13th December 2001 showed emphatically that
all but two of the entire workers of the respondent company collected the forms
and duly affirmed their confidence in management and loyalty to the respondent
company. One is open to conjecture that those who did not follow the procedure
for the re-opening of the mines automatically ended their service therein, and
that those who completed and returned the forms were to continue in employment.
This fact notwithstanding, the employments of about twenty-eight of the
workers, including all the plaintiffs/appellants herein were terminated. Each
of them was served with a rejection letter, and a certificate of service. The
latter provided the reason for leaving the service of the respondents as
"Not re-admitted after closure of the mine in May 1999." <o:p></o:p>The twenty-five
plaintiffs/appellants felt they had a common grievance against their former
employer, the respondent herein; hence they filed an action in the High Court
Registry at Tarkwa to contest the rightfulness of the termination of their
appointments with the defendants/respondents. The issues that went before the
trial court were: <o:p></o:p>(a)&nbsp; Whether or not termination of Plaintiffs'
appointment was wrongful and/or illegal. <o:p></o:p>(b)&nbsp; Whether or not Plaintiffs are entitled to
their reliefs." <o:p></o:p>The plaintiffs/appellants,
it should be pointed out, prosecuted their claims severally albeit they all
joined together on one writ of summons as plaintiffs. This is known to and in
accordance with the procedure in the courts in Ghana by virtue of Order 16 rule
1 of L.N. 140A. In such a situation, the rule provides for, and actually
enjoins the trial judge, to consider the individual claims of each of the
Plaintiffs and give judgment "for such one or more of the plaintiffs as
may be found to be entitled to relief, for such relief as he or they may be
entitled to." <o:p></o:p>At the trial the 1st,
22nd, 24th, 25, 6th, 4th, 11th, 15th and 16th plaintiffs gave evidence on
respect of their individual claims while the 9th Plaintiff spoke for himself
and on behalf of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 12th, 13th, 14th,
17th, 18th, 19th and 20th, plaintiffs. None of the plaintiff/appellants called
any independent evidence from a witness to support his or their case. Evidence
for the defendant/respondent was articulated through the Respondent Director
and two other witnesses. <o:p></o:p>At the end of the trial,
the Court dismissed the claims of</main>