GLADYS DZARH-KLU vs. GIMPA [2010]DLHC5582

Date	2010-06-01
Suit No.	SUIT NO: BMISC/1021/08
Citation No.	[2010]DLHC5582

JUSTICE KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

MRS. NANCY AMPOFO WITH MS. AUDREY TWUM FOR THE PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT

MRS. VICTORIA BARTH WITH MS. VALLERY SENAVOR BRIEF FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

[2010]DLHC5582
																																						<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" >GLADYS DZARH-KLU <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GIMPA <o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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: BMISC/1021/08&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; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 1ST
JUNE, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MRS. NANCY AMPOFO WITH MS.
AUDREY TWUM FOR THE PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT<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">

MRS.
VICTORIA BARTH WITH MS. VALLERY SENAVOR BRIEF FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPLICANT<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>On 26th
March, 2010 the Defendant/Applicant filed an amended Statement of Defence
pursuant to leave granted by this court on 25th March, 2010. The Plaintiff/Respondent
also as of right filed a reply to the amended Statement of Defence on 6th
April, 2010. The Defendant/Applicant was not satisfied with some aspects of the
reply so it filed Motion on Notice on 26th April, 2010 pleading with
the Court to strike out those pleadings in the reply to the amended Statement
of Defence which the Plaintiff/Respondent has opposed. This ruling is,
therefore, in respect of the said motion.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According
to the Defendant/Applicant, the Plaintiff averred in her Statement of Claim
that she was dismissed on grounds of redundancy by the Defendant on 30th
September, 2001 together with 112 other employees. Also, she was paid junior
staff severance benefits rather than benefits under the senior staff conditions
of service.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Defendant
also stated in its Statement of Defence that the Defendant pleaded that Plaintiff
in accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) negotiated between the
parties willingly, accepted the junior staff severance package as part of her
entitlements and dully signed an undertaking to that effect.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Defendant/Applicant
goes on to aver that the Plaintiff led evidence which showed that although she
was initially selected as part of staff affected by the National Institutional
Renewal Programme, she actually retired from the Defendant Institute with
effect from 1st October, 2001. She also testified that she has been
paid all her retirement benefits including her superannuation entitlements and
that she continues to enjoy a monthly pension and access to free medical care
among others. So, it was to bring the Defendant’s pleadings in line with
evidence already led that the Defendant applied for leave to amend its
Statement of Defence which was granted and the Plaintiff given the right to
file a reply to the amended Statement of Defence.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According
to the Defendant/Applicant, some aspects of the Plaintiff’s reply go beyond
responding to the amended defence and purport to raise new reliefs. It claims
that reply is limited to confession and avoidance and does not afford a party
the right to raise new claims. The Plaintiff’s reply in paragraphs 21, 23, 26,
28, 30 and 31 will, therefore, prejudice and delay the fair trial of the
action. They are, therefore, an abuse of the process of the Court so they must
be struck out.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Plaintiff/Respondent
on the other hand states that her reply to the amended Statement of Defence is
in order. She claims that the Defendant did not de-select her from redundancy
and terminate her by way of retirement, so she had to reply to that in the
amended reply. She claims she was never cross-examined on any matter</main>