ADOFO AND OTHERS vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ANOTHER [2005]DLSC964

Date	2005-04-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2005]DLSC964

ATUGUBA JSC

AKUFFO JSC

WOOD JSC

DATE-BAH JSC

ANINAKWAH JSC

SAMUEL KLAYSON FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

MRS KATHLEEN QUARTEY AYEN CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL THE FIRST DEFENDANT

JOHN D CLOTTEY-SEFA FOR THE GHANA BOARD THE SECOND DEFENDANT

[2005]DLSC964
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">ADOFO AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p><a name="_gjdgxs"></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[2003-2005] 1 GLR 239<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">Date: 20 April 2005<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>SAMUEL KLAYSON FOR THE PLAINTIFFS<o:p></o:p>MRS KATHLEEN QUARTEY AYEN, CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE
ATTORNEY-GENERAL, THE FIRST DEFENDANTJOHN D CLOTTEY-SEFA FOR THE GHANA BOARD, THE SECOND DEFENDANT CORAM: ATUGUBA, AKUFFO, WOOD,
DATE-BAH AND ANINAKWAH JJSCJUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Date-Bah JSC: <o:p></o:p>Delivered the judgment of the Supreme Court. This is the unanimous
judgment of the court. The plaintiffs issued a writ on 2 March 2004 seeking an
enforcement of the Constitution, 1992 by:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“(1) A declaration that by the
proper interpretation of article 36(1) and (2) of the Constitution, 1992, PNDCL
125 ceased to exist or to have any effect upon the coming into effect of the
Constitution, 1992 of the Republic of Ghana. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(2) A declaration that the
said PNDCL 125 is inconsistent with the provision of the Constitution, 1992 in
so far as it tends to discriminate against certain categories of workers in
Ghana and within the Cocobod. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(3) A declaration that the
said PNDCL 125 is unconscionable and must be removed from the statute books of
Ghana.”<o:p></o:p>The writ was expressed to be issued by three plaintiffs, namely
Ernest Adofo, Paul K Sekley and Samuel Ntiful “for themselves and on behalf of
70 other workers of the Cocobod retrenched in September 1994.” In the
accompanying statement of case, verified by an affidavit deposed to by the
first plaintiff, the plaintiffs stated that they were citizens of Ghana and
former employees of the Ghana Cocoa Board. They further stated that in or about
1994 the plaintiffs, numbering about 70, were declared redundant and their
employment terminated. Their terminal benefits were not paid them, they
claimed. When they made inquiries regarding these benefits, they alleged that
they were informed of the Ghana Cocoa Board (Re-organisation and Indemnity)
Law, 1985 (PNDCL 125), which was said to empower the Ghana Cocoa Board to
terminate their employment and to indemnify the board from any liability for
the payment of retirement benefits in accordance with the collective agreement of
these employees. The plaintiffs contended that PNDCL 125 was unconstitutional,
as it offended against the express stipulation in article 36 of the
Constitution, 1992. This reference in the plaintiffs’ statement of case was in
fact wrong and should have read section 36 of the transitional provisions of
the Constitution, 1992.<o:p></o:p>On 25 November 2004 the plaintiffs filed a motion on notice for an
amendment of their writ in order to cure an irregularity which had been
identified by the defendants. The plaintiffs’ writ had failed to provide the
addresses of the first three plaintiffs nor the names or addresses of the 70
other workers of Cocobod that the first three plaintiffs purported to
represent. The amendment was granted on 18 January 2005. By the amended writ,
the three plaintiffs no longer purported to be representing others and their
respective addresses were now inserted. The nature of the reliefs sought was
now indorsed as follows:<o:p></o:p>“Enforcement of
the Constitution, 1992 by: <o:p></o:p>(1) A declaration that by the proper interpretation of article
36(1) and (2) of the transitional provisions of the Constitution, 1992, PNDCL
125 ceased to exist or to have any effect upon the coming into effect of the
Constitution, 1992 of the Republic of Ghana. <o:p></o:p>