NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION vs. WOMEN’S WORLD BANKING GHANA [2010]DLHC4343

Date	2010-12-15
Suit No.	SUIT NO. INDL.5/11
Citation No.	[2010]DLHC4343

KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

MS. EFFIBA AMIHERE WITH PAPA DANQUAH FOR THE APPLICANT

MR. ROBERT PAPPOE HOLDING THE BRIEF OF MR. R. K. BANNERMAN

WILLIAMS FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2010]DLHC4343
																																						<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">NATIONAL
LABOUR COMMISSION<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>WOMEN’S WORLD BANKING GHANA <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.
INDL.5/11&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: 15TH DECEMBER, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MS.
EFFIBA AMIHERE WITH PAPA DANQUAH FOR THE APPLICANT<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. ROBERT PAPPOE HOLDING THE BRIEF OF MR.
R. K. BANNERMAN-WILLIAMS FOR THE RESPONDENT<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">

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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>The
Applicant herein filed a motion on 28th October 2010 praying for an
order to compel the Respondent herein to comply with the ruling of the
Applicant against the Respondent dated 18th June 2007. The
Respondent did not oppose the application so on 8th November 2010
this Court granted the application by ordering the Respondent to comply with
the decision of the Applicant dated 18th June 2007. The Applicant,
however, pleaded with the Court that since the amount was due for payment on 18th
June 2007, the Court should order the Respondent to pay interest on the amount
which the Respondent opposed on ground that, interest was not part of the
order. The Court as a result set down the issue of interest payment for legal
arguments so this ruling is in respect of the oral application made by the
Applicant pleading with the Court to compel the Respondent to pay interest on
the amount due.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In her
submission counsel for the Applicant pleaded with Court that even though it did
not specifically ask for interest, the Court has discretionary power to award
interest on the amount due. She claims that the Court should take into
consideration the date on which the amount was due for payment and award
interest on the amount due. She referred the Court to the following cases: Hello v. Tetteh (1992) 2 GLR 112 and
NTHC Ltd. v. Antwi [2009] SCGLR 117;<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the Respondent opposed the oral application for the award of interest and
submitted that the Court has no jurisdiction to order payment of interest on
the amount due since the issue of interest was not part of the decision they
were ordered to pay. He went on to submit that this Court has no power to
review an award made by the Applicant. He claims that where the enabling
statute does not expressly confer jurisdiction on a Court it must not assume
jurisdiction. On this he referred the Court to Azorblie and Others v. Ankrah IV [1984-86] 1 GLR 561 and Spokesman (Publications) Ltd. v.
Attorney General [1974] GLR 88. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the Respondent goes on to submit that in entertaining the substantive
application this Court draws its power from Section 172 of the Labour
Act 2003 (Act 651). The said section of the Act does not confer on the
Court the power to re-open the matter. He concluded by submitting that the oral
application made by the Applicant for the award of interest should be
dismissed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Court
has already ordered the Respondent to comply with the decision of the Applicant
which was that the Respondent should pay six months’ salary to the petitioner
as compensation for unfair and wrongful termination of his appointment. The
order was given on 18th June 2007 and the Respondent given 14 days
to comply with it but it did not comply with the order as a result of which the
Applicant applied to this Court under Section
172 of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651) for an order to compel the Respondent
to comply with its order of 18th June 2007. Counsel for the
Applicant went on to make oral application that since the amount was due for
payment on 18th June 2007 the Court should further order the
Respondent to pay interest on the amount due to the petitioner. The Respondent
did not oppose the substantive application but </main>