[2005]DLSC6743 Login to Read Full Case <span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; color:#00B0F0">JAMES BAIDEN & OTHERS<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; color:#00B0F0">GRAPHIC CORPORATION<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><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="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; 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"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">CIVIL APPEAL NO. CA J4/36/2004<b> </b> DATE<b>: </b>13TH JULY, 2005<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: 115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">MR. KWAKU PANTSIL FOR PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS. <o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;border:none; mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">MR J.K. AGYEMANG FOR RESPONDENTS.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">CORAM: <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">ATUGUBA J.S.C. (PRESIDING), AKUFFO (MS) J.S.C., DR. TWUM J.S.C., LARTEY J.S.C., ANINAKWA J.S.C..<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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"><b><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">ATUGUBA J.S.C. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">The appellants were the employees of the respondent Graphic Corporation. Their relationship was governed, inter alia, by a collective agreement (exhibit B). Section 28.03 thereof provided for long service awards to the employees, while section 28.04 provided for end of service awards. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">However, in December 1990, the government of the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC), directed all public corporations and the state organisations having end of service benefits to freeze them and to arrange with the unions regarding payments to their employees entitled to such benefits up to the end of December 1990. Pursuant to this directive and following talks on the matter between the Ministry of Mobilization and Social Welfare, the Trade Union Congress and management of the respondent, the end of year benefits were calculated and 40 per cent thereof was paid out to the plaintiffs, leaving 60 per cent thereof on hold, which was paid to them upon the termination of their employment in 1993 (see pages 43, 44. 48-49 of the record of appeal). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">On 29 October 1993 the plaintiffs and others totalling 155 in number, were served with letters, in identical terms, of termination of their employment with the respondent. On their own evidence, in addition to the end of service benefits as they stood at the end of December 1990 they were paid severance awards and their provident fund contributions after the necessary deductions. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">The appellants' however, contend that they were entitled to their end of service awards from their time of employment up to the date of the termination of the same on 29 October 1993 based on the provisions of section 28.04 of their collective agreement. This claim was upheld by the trial judge on the ground that the aforementioned directive of the PNDC was contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, 1965 (Act 299), as it violated section 28.04 of the said collective agreement. This holding was reversed by the Court of Appeal on the ground that the said directive of the PNDC has been accorded constitutional immunity by section 34(3) of the Transitional Provisions of the 1992 Constitution. Counsel on both sides, Kwaku Paintsil for the appellants and J K Agyemang for the respondent, have put forward very stiff and learned arguments on this matter and I am much indebted to them. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">Mr. Paintsil first contended that the said PNDC directive was multi-faceted and could not be judicially noticed in the absence of evidence as to its specifics with regard to its scope of applicability in terms of categories of employees to be affected, its duration, contingent conditions to be complied with either by employers or employees, etc. Mr J K Agyemang's reply to this is that such specifics were irrelevant to the claims sought by the plaintiffs. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">In my view, the answer to the propriety of judicial notice of the said PNDC directive lies in the provisions of section 9(2)(a) and (b) of the Evidence Decree, 1975 (NRCD 323), which are as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">"9(2) Judicial notice can be taken only of facts which are either: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">(a) so generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the court; or <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">(b) so capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned that the fact is not subject to reasonable dispute." (The emphasis is mine). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">It is clear that, if as contended by counsel for the appellants, only the general or bald fact of the freezing of end of service awards was in the terms of section 9(2)(a), " so generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the court" as to be suitable for judicial notice, yet any details that such a directive entailed, having been issued by a public body like the Ministry of Mobilization and Social Welfare would be "so capable of accurate and ready determination " by resort to, the relevant records of that Ministry that "their accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Indeed, this court directed counsel on either side of this case to have that directive made available to us. This has been done and it confirms the facts of the directive as judicially noticed by the courts below. In a press release dated 10 December 1990 jointly signed by Mr. D. S. Boateng, the then secretary for Mobilization and Social Welfare and Mr A K. Yankey, the then Secretary-General of the Trades Union Congress, it is stated: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">"Governmental TUC Joint Standing Committee has met in Accra to discuss the End-of-Service Benefits scheme and other related matters. The meeting followed the misinterpretation of the directives issued earlier by the government to Chief Executives of State-owned Enterprises in respect of End of Service benefits. The Standing Committee discussed a number of issues bearing directly on the end-of-service benefits, including the magnitude of the total amount involved, its payment and overall effects on the National Economy. The meeting also discussed the national pension scheme and the cost of living allowanc