ALBERT NKORNU & 870 ORS. vs. VOLTA ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD [2009]DLHC5671

Date	2009-03-24
Suit No.	SUIT NO.BMISC 63/05
Citation No.	[2009]DLHC5671

JUSTICE KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

MR. AKOTO AMPAW FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

MR. GEORGE THOMPSON FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2009]DLHC5671
																																						<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" >ALBERT NKORNU &amp; 870 ORS.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>VOLTA ALUMINIUM
COMPANY LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RSPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[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.BMISC 63/05&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; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 24TH MARCH, 2009<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
AKOTO AMPAW FOR THE PLAINTIFFS<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. GEORGE THOMPSON FOR THE
DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>

</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">

JUSTICE KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU<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 for joinder and to amend the endorsement on the Writ of Summons
filed by the plaintiffs on 26th May, 2009.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The plaintiffs are seeking to join
One Hundred and Seventeen (117) other former employees of the defendant company
as plaintiffs. They are also seeking leave of the court to amend the
endorsement on the Writ of Summons by substituting for relief (b) the following
new relief (b):<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“(b) an order directed at the
Defendant to pay their end of service benefits based on the cedi/dollar
indexation.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According to the
plaintiffs/applicants, they have the authority of One Hundred and Seventeen
other former employees of the defendant company to join them as plaintiffs.
They submit that the said former employees have the same interest as the
present plaintiffs, so in order to ensure that all the matters in controversy
are finally and effectively determined, they must be joined as plaintiffs.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the second application, they
claim that in instructing their lawyer, they omitted to include the fact that
salaries of VALCO employees for the period relevant for the determination of
this suit were indexed to the cedi/dollar exchange rate at any material time
and this is what constitutes the basis for calculating the end of service
benefits due to employees leaving the service of the defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The plaintiffs/applicants claim this
issue came up during cross-examination of defendant’s witness, DW1, on 19th
May, 2009 when he admitted that there were occasions when the cedi/dollar
indexation was used in calculating the end of service benefits of employees
leaving the service of the defendant. They are, therefore, seeking to amend the
endorsement on the Writ of Summons for the reliefs sought to be consistent with
the evidence on record on the issue. The application for leave to amend should,
therefore, be granted.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The defendant has opposed the two
applications. According to the defendant, the employees were declared redundant
at different times and the defendant is not sure of the dates of redundancy set
against their names. It goes on to argue that it has pleaded limitation that a
number of the applicants are already caught by the Limitation Decree. So they
should not be joined. According to the defendant, in granting a joinder, it is
important to consider whether somebody is caught by the Limitation Decree or
not. Where the applicant is caught by a Limitation Decree, he ought not to be
joined. The application to amend should, therefore, be dismissed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the issue of the amendment to add
the indexation of the cedi to the dollar, the defendant argues that it is not
the practice of the court to pay money based on current values and that
interest is awarded instead. This is because, whatever a person is entitled to
by way of end of service benefit would be a sum that he</main>