THE REPUBLIC vs. RUTH SMITH ADJEI EX-PARTE RICHARD BRAKATU & FELIX DJAN [2009]DLHC4308

Date	2009-11-06
Suit No.	SUIT NO. INDL/6/08
Citation No.	[2009]DLHC4308

KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

MR. KWESI DANSO ACHEAMPONG FOR THE APPLICANTS

MR. EKOW DADSON FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2009]DLHC4308
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>RUTH SMITH ADJEI
EX-PARTE RICHARD BRAKATU &amp; FELIX DJAN<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (INDUSTRIAL/LABOUR DIVISION),
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">

SUIT NO.
INDL/6/08&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;&nbsp;DATE: 6TH NOVEMBER, 2009 <o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MR. KWESI DANSO ACHEAMPONG FOR THE
APPLICANTS<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">

</div>CORAM: <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">

KWABENA
ASUMAN-ADU, JUSTICE
OF THE HIGH COURT<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">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>This ruling is in respect of an
application filed by the applicants praying for an order of committal for contempt
against the respondent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According to the applicants, they
issued a Writ against Blue Skies Products Ghana Limited and three others. The
respondent herein is the acting General Manager of Blue Skies Products, Ghana
Limited.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Whilst the said suit is pending, the
respondent herein has declared the first applicant redundant. The same
respondent wrote a letter to the second applicant warning him in a bid to
intimidate or coerce them to discontinue the suit. The actions of the
respondent, therefore, amount to interference in the suit calculated to prevent
them from going on with the suit. This is an affront to the administration of
justice and it brings same into disrepute and as such contempt of this court.
This court should, therefore, order the respondent to purge her contempt or be
imprisoned for contempt of court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By making the first applicant
redundant, his status as an employee has been compromised, an act intended to
obstruct him from pursuing his claim. The act of the respondent in respect of the
application was made in bad faith. It was done to undermine the administration
of justice by ignoring laid down procedures for carrying out redundancy
exercise and disciplinary actions under respondents’ own Pay and Conditions
Hand Book and the Labour Act 2003 (Act 651).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The warning letter sent to the
second applicant conflicts with the Hand Book and seeks to intimidate and
coerce him to abandon the pursuit of justice and also conflict with Regulation
9 of LI 1833.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The respondent has opposed the application
on grounds that she is not guilty of contempt. According to her, the applicants
have not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she is guilty of
contempt. She states that she has done nothing to denigrate the authority of
this court. Also, she has done nothing to interfere in the proceedings or
processes of the pending suit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According to her, the applicants are
workers of the company of which she is the Acting General Manager and are
subject to disciplinary procedure as defined in their terms of reference or
engagement and the law and practices on Labour within the Republic.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>She goes on to state that it is the
company’s right to avail itself of the right to place workers on redundancy
which it did and which is the subject of a pending suit in this court. At all
material times, the steps and procedure prescribed for redundancy under the law
were complied with, especially as regards to notice among other things. These
steps have nothing whatsoever to do with this suit or its outcome. The reliefs
endorsed and sought by the applicants in their Writ of Summons have not been
overreached and are not affected or in any way prejudiced the hearing and
determination of the substantive suit upon which the current application is
founded.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>She contends that in pursuance of
this redundancy, the company laid off about 62 of its 2000 workers including
the first applicant. The first applicant was, therefore, not the only employee
who was declared redundant. She goes on to contend that the exercise was
limited to workers in Non-Production areas of the factory site of the company.
Those working within the factory were not affected. The first applicant who was
a security worker in the company was not within the factory, so he was
affected. The exercise was aimed at reducing overhead costs, increasing
production etc to enable the company break even and sustain its operations in
the face of the downturn in sales and losses.<o:p></o:p>