REGIONAL MARITIME ACADEMY vs. J. APPIAH AMANING & ORS. [2005]DLSC2412

Date	2005-04-20
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/20/2004
Citation No.	[2005]DLSC2412

ATUGUBA J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

MISS AKUFFO J.S.C

LARTEY J.S.C

ANSAH J.S.C.

ANINAKWA J.S.C.

MR. DAVID KUDAADZI FOR APPELLANTS.

MR. WILLIAM ADDO FOR RESPONDENTS.

[2005]DLSC2412
																																						<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" >REGIONAL MARITIME ACADEMY<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>J. APPIAH AMANING &amp; ORS.<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT]<o:p></o:p>CIVIL
APPEAL NO. J4/20/2004<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">

DATE: 20TH APRIL, 2005.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR. DAVID KUDAADZI 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">

MR.
WILLIAM ADDO FOR RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

ATUGUBA,
J.S.C. (PRESIDING), MISS AKUFFO, J.S.C., LARTEY, J.S.C., ANSAH, J.S.C., ANINAKWA,
J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div>J U D G M E N T<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;LARTEY, J.S.C.:&nbsp; This is an appeal against the majority
decision of the Court of Appeal, reversing the decision of the High Court,
Accra which had entered judgment for the defendant against the Plaintiffs.<o:p></o:p>The
brief facts according to the respondents (henceforth referred to as the
plaintiffs) are that they were employees of the appellant (henceforth also
referred to as the defendant) until on or about April 1, 1995 they were
retrenched and declared redundant at a time they had all served the defendants
for varying numbers of years.&nbsp; They
averred they were all members of the Teachers and Educational Workers Union
(TEWU) of the Trades Union Congress of Ghana.&nbsp;
They alleged that in or about 1994 the defendant decided to carry out a
retrenchment exercise, mandating the Minister of Transport and Communications
to handle the exercise on its behalf.&nbsp;
According to the plaintiffs TEWU negotiated on their behalf with
officials of the Ministry of Transport and Communications of Ghana whereby an
agreement was reached that the plaintiffs would each receive from the defendant
two and half months’ pay as end-of-service benefits for each completed year of
service.&nbsp; In the view of the plaintiffs,
the defendant having resiled from the said agreement, was insisting on paying
the plaintiffs a flat amount of three months pay each regardless of the number
of years of service rendered to the defendant.&nbsp;
On these facts the plaintiffs on May 16, 1995 issued their writ of
summons claiming:<o:p></o:p>“(a) A declaration that the plaintiffs
are entitled to end-of-service benefit calculated at 2½ months salary for each
year of service to the Defendant by the Plaintiffs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(b) An order upon the Defendant to pay the
Plaintiffs end of service benefit calculated at 2½ months salary for each year
of service to the Defendant by Plaintiffs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(c)&nbsp;
Interest on the sum due to each Plaintiff from the 1st day of April,
1995 to the date of final judgment”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In its defence the defendant averred that the
Regional Maritime Academy is governed by an agreement drawn between the
Government of Ghana and the Ministerial Conference of West and Central African
States on Maritime Transport.&nbsp; And in
accordance with article 6(2) of the agreement the terms of contract of all
employees of the Academy is governed by what is termed ‘International
Administrative Law’.&nbsp; Under article 13(3)
the salaries of all regular employees are quoted in US dollars but paid the
cedis equivalent of the quoted US dollars.&nbsp;
The defendant finally averred that its action was based on the decision
of the Board of Governors of the RMA which in turn acted in accordance with the
International Document of the Academy which specifies the conditions of service
of its employees.<o:p></o:p>At
the trial the plaintiffs called one witness to give evidence on behalf of all
the plaintiffs.&nbsp; He testified that as
employees of the defendant institution the plaintiffs belonged to the Teachers
and Educational Workers Union of T.U.C.&nbsp;
According to the witness at the end of the restructuring exercise the
principal of the institution gave the names of the workers whose services were
no longer needed, and were to receive only three months basic salary as
end-of-service benefit notwithstanding the number of years each of the
plaintiffs had served.&nbsp; In the course of
their evidence, the witness tendered exhibit ‘A’,&nbsp; i.e. the Collective Bargaining Certificate,
which in their belief entitled them to conduct collective bargaining on behalf
of its members.&nbsp; Exhibit ‘B’ was a letter
written by the local union of TEWU to the General Secretary of TEWU of
T.U.C.&nbsp; in which they complained of their
dissatisfaction with the outcome of a previous meeting held on 12 October, 1994
in respect of the retrenchment exercise of the R.M.A. Exhibit ‘C’ reflects the
minutes of the meeting of 10th January, 1995 on the same redundancy exercise
carried out by the RMA.&nbsp; It is
significant to note from paragraph 8.0 of the exhibit that the attention of the
meeting was drawn to the Board’s rejection of the 2½&nbsp; months salary for every completed year of
service agreed upon during the negotiations on the severance award.&nbsp; In paragraph 8.1 the explanation given was
that the Board of RMA at its 18th session rejected the rate outright, and
further drew the attention of the Ministry of Transport and Communications to
the Academy’s Convention which spelt out the conditions for such purposes.<o:p></o:p>After
examining the evidence assembled before her the trial judge held that since RMA
is an institution with an international status the terms of its employees are
regulated by RMA conditions of service, and that the plaintiffs have no
bargaining agreement with RMA.&nbsp; She also
held that the agreement the plaintiffs were relying upon for their claim has no
binding effect on the defendant institution, and that whatever bargaining power
the plaintiffs had with Ghana Nautical College ceased when that college was
dissolved and replaced by RMA.&nbsp; The judge
was of the opinion that the plaintiffs’ claim is based on nothing and cannot be
sustained.&nbsp; Consequently she dismissed
the claim and entered judgment for the defendant.<o:p></o:p>At
the Court of Appeal by a majority of two to one the trial court’s judgment was
overturned.&nbsp; It is against the majority judgment
of the Court of Appeal that the defendant launched the instant appeal to this
court on a number of grounds and which were filed on different occasions.&nbsp; The first in time to be filed was on 8
August, 2001, which featured in the notice of appeal and which included the
usual omnibus ground of the judgment being against the weight of evidence.&nbsp; Then came the next group of grounds of appeal
numbering not less than seven and which were described as additional grounds.&nbsp; The last group, termed further additional
grounds of appeal, was said to be in substitution for the earlier grounds filed
on 8 August, 2001 and 28 March, 2002.&nbsp; In
reality only the omnibus ground and three of the latter grounds were together
argued.&nbsp; Those three were couched as
follows:-<o:p></o:p>“1A&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The learned majority at the Court of
Appeal erred in </main>