FRANCIS ASSUMING & 640 ORS. vs. DIVESTITURE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE. [2008]DLSC6738

Date	2008-05-07
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/28/2007
Citation No.	[2008]DLSC6738

AKUFFO (MS) J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

BROBBEY J.S.C.

ANSAH J.S.C.

ADINYIRA (MRS) J.S.C.

ASIAMAH J.S.C.

YAA GYAKOBO FOR APPELLANT.

EMMANUEL AVERNOGBOR FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2008]DLSC6738
																																						<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" >FRANCIS ASSUMING &amp; 640 ORS.<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>DIVESTITURE
IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE.<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<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: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">CIVIL
APPEAL NO. J4/28/2007&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: 7TH MAY 2008<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>YAA GYAKOBO FOR APPELLANT. <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">

EMMANUEL AVERNOGBOR FOR THE
RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&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">

AKUFFO (MS) J.S.C. (PRESIDING),
BROBBEY J.S.C., ANSAH J.S.C., ADINYIRA (MRS) J.S.C., ASIAMAH J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>ANSAH,
J.S.C. <o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal against the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 24th
November, 2006, dismissing an appeal and affirming a ruling of the High Court. <o:p></o:p>The
undisputed facts of this case are that the respondents herein were former
employees of the erstwhile Achimota Brewery Company Limited, (called ABC for
short). They were declared redundant when ABC was listed for divestiture by the
Government. The appellant was the committee that undertook the divestiture. <o:p></o:p>The
plaint by the respondents was that on a true and proper interpretation of the
relevant legislation, to wit, the Labor (Amendment) Decree, 1969, (NLC 342),
they were entitled to be paid severance pay computed at the number of years
each had worked with the company, ABC, instead of the fourteen (14) months
salary paid to each of them. <o:p></o:p>Thus,
the real core issue in this suit was how the severance pay for employees
affected by a company divested by the government determined? The appellants
posited it was as determined and fixed by the Labor Amendment Decree, 1969,
(NLCD 342), which was according to the number of years for which a worker had
worked and not the flat fourteen months salary paid to them. To remedy the
situation, the plaintiffs sought the following reliefs from the High Court,
namely: <o:p></o:p>"(a)
A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of NLCD 342, the
plaintiffs are entitled to be paid Severance pay in relation to the number of
years each plaintiff served and not on the basis of a flat rate. <o:p></o:p>(b)
A declaration that the payment of severance pay as calculated and paid to the
plaintiffs herein in 1995 is null and void. <o:p></o:p>(c)
An order of the Court directing the defendants and the plaintiffs to agree,
within reasonable time severance pay to be calculated in conformity with NLC
342 is proportional pegging to the number of years each plaintiff served within
a reasonable time. <o:p></o:p>(d)
Alternatively, or in default of agreement between the parties within a
reasonable time, an order of the court to fix a reasonable severance award and
the modalities for calculating same for payment to plaintiff. <o:p></o:p>(e)
An order directed against defendants to pay plaintiffs the difference between
each plaintiff's entitlement upon proper construction of NLCD 342 and that
which each plaintiff was purportedly paid in 1995. <o:p></o:p>(f)
Interest at Bank rate on each difference from 20th April, 1992, to date of
payment." <o:p></o:p>The
High Court granted all the reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons, save relief
4. With this judgment, the parties entered into negotiations the result of
which was that the plaintiffs were to be paid a month's salary for each year of
service with interest at the rate of 38% per annum, and to submit a computation
of the entitlements to the appellants. The respondent submitted the computed
entitlements to the appellant but each was rejected for the reason that the
interest was compounded contrary to the provisions of the Courts (Award of
interest) Instrument, 1984, (LI 1295). <o:p></o:p>After
this, the respondents requested the Acting Executive Secretary of the appellants,
a Mr. Acheamfour-Yeboah, to review the matter. However the self-same Acting
Executive Secretary and the appellants rejected the review report. <o:p></o:p>The
respondents next applied to the court for an order to determine the yardstick
and the mode of calculation of the judgment debt to them. On 18-1-05, the High
Court presided over by Ackah-Yensu J, ordered the appellant and the 2nd
defendant to pay the sum of ¢3,103,195,155.30 together with interest running
from 30th April 1992 to date of payment to the respondents. The appellant
applied unsuccessfully to set this order aside. It then brought the present
appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal. <o:p></o:p>The grounds of appeal were as follows: <o:p></o:p>i)