SAGE GHANA LTD. vs. J.K. NYARKO & 21 ORS. [2004]DLCA6946

Date	2004-06-11
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/157/04.
Citation No.	[2004]DLCA6946

S. T. FARKYE J.A PRESIDING

J.B. AKAMBA J. A

JONES DOTSE J A

K.N. BAFFOE ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT.

E. AVERNOGBOE ESQ. FOR E.K. JONES-MENSAH & ASSOCIATES FOR PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS

[2004]DLCA6946
																																						<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" >SAGE GHANA LTD.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>J.K. NYARKO &amp; 21 ORS.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS)<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">

K.N. BAFFOE, ESQ. FOR THE
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

E. AVERNOGBOE, ESQ. FOR E.K.
JONES-MENSAH &amp; ASSOCIATES FOR PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>S.
T. FARKYE J.A PRESIDING, J.B. AKAMBA J. A, JONES DOTSE 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="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;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>J.B.
AKAMBA, J.A:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;On 15th November 2002, Mrs. I.M. Heward-Mills,
J. sitting at the High Court Tema, entered judgment against the
defendant/appellant (hereinafter referred as the defendant) upon a writ of
summons laid before her. The defendant, who is dissatisfied with the judgment,
filed the present appeal in this court. <o:p></o:p>The
facts of this case as gleaned from the record of proceedings are that the
defendant company employed the twenty-two plaintiffs/respondents (hereinafter
simply referred as the plaintiffs) as non-permanent (casual) labourers on
various dates before their appointments were terminated on 29th February 2000.
The plaintiffs' employment was covered by collective agreement, which spelt out
their conditions of service. The collective agreement, exhibit A, is governed
by the Industrial Relations Act 1965, Act 229, since it was negotiated on their
behalf by the Trade Union. It is the case of the plaintiffs that upon the
termination of their employment, the defendant failed to pay them duly as
provided under the agreement resulting in loss to each plaintiff. The
plaintiffs also contend that prior to tile termination of their respective
employments, tile defendant had failed to convert their casual status to
permanent, in accordance with the collective agreement despite the fact that
they had qualified for such conversion. This was also done to their detriment.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The defendant on the other hand, admits that
even though there were no formal notifications to the plaintiffs either
individually or collectively, defendants appropriate had treated the plaintiffs
as permanent employees. They accordingly paid the plaintiffs appropriate
benefits except for those benefits that required individual formal
applications. In these latter instances those who applied were granted the facility.
<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiffs issued their writ of summons on 28th April 2000 claiming against the
defendant the following: <o:p></o:p>"(1)
Damages for breach of contract in failing to engage PLAINTIFFS in the permanent
establishment of DEFENDANT company according to their employment contract
resulting in monetary loss to PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(2) Payment of differences between payment
made upon PLAINTIFFS redundancy and PLAINTIFFS’ rightful entitlements as would
be entitled to a permanent employee.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(3) Special
damages.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The trial judge after hearing evidence from
both parties entered judgment for the plaintiffs granting all the reliefs
stated supra. The defendant who is aggrieved by the decision filed the
following grounds of appeal. <o:p></o:p>(1) The judgment is against the weight
of evidence. <o:p></o:p>(2) The trial judge erred in law and
in fact in awarding general damages and interest and worse still excessive
general damages and interest in favour of plaintiffs. <o:p></o:p>(3) The trial judge erred in law and
in fact in awarding extremely excessive cost to the plaintiff. <o:p></o:p>(4) The trial judge erred in law and
intact by failing to apply the Limitation Decree, 1972 (NRCD 54) in favour of
the Defendant. <o:p></o:p>(5) The trial judge erred in Law and
in fact by failing to apply the common law principle of estoppel in favour of
the defendant but applied it in favour of the plaintiffs. <o:p></o:p>(6) Further grounds to be filed upon
receipt of the record of proceedings. <o:p></o:p>I
propose to dispose of this appeal in the same sequence adopted by the appellant
counsel in his submission of case, starting with grounds one (1) and two (2)
together. The complaint in these two grounds together i</main>