GABRIEL K. AGBENYEGA vs. GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK [2010]DLHC5633

Date	2010-12-16
Suit No.	SUIT NO: C898/02
Citation No.	[2010]DLHC5633

JUSTICE KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

MR. STEPHEN AGYEMANG WITH ODETTE AGYEMANG FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

MR. A. T. TAMAKLOE FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2010]DLHC5633
																																						<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" >GABRIEL K. AGBENYEGA<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<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: C898/02&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 16TH DECEMBER,
2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR. STEPHEN AGYEMANG WITH
ODETTE AGYEMANG FOR THE PLAINTIFF/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. A. T. TAMAKLOE FOR THE
DEFENDANT/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">

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 motion on notice for
leave to amend Plaintiff’s reply filed on 4th February, 2010 by the
insertion of the following:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“4. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Plaintiff will add that not only was he
not allowed to confront his accusers but that the very composition of the
Disciplinary Committee was in breach of Defendant’s own rules effectively
rendering its decisions null and void.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>5. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Plaintiff will add that Defendant’s
unilateral decision to pay only his Provident Fund Contributions was never
accepted by him; Plaintiff having at all material times protested through his
lawyers as well as the Labour Department that he was entitled to more payments
and/or entitlements than that which had been paid out,”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Defendant has opposed the said application,
hence this ruling.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According to the Plaintiff/Applicant he indicated
in his evidence in chief without any challenge that he was not allowed to
confront his accusers. Also various information came to him when the Defendant
tendered in evidence the Disciplinary Committee Report and the Defendant
confirmed that the Plaintiff did not accept his Provident Fund Entitlements.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The amendment sought, therefore, does not raise any
new claim since all facts are borne out of pleadings as well as from the Record
of Proceedings which both counsel have already cross examined on. The amendment
is neither prejudicial to the Defendant who has already answered questions on
these facts during cross-examination, nor will it unduly delay the trial; since
no further evidence needs to be led or cross examined on.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The amendment has become necessary since Plaintiff
is enjoined by law to plead any fact he intends to rely on in evidence; Plaintiff
having already dealt with these issues during cross examination. This is
necessary to enable full picture of Plaintiff’s case laid before this Court for
consideration. If the application is not granted the Applicant would </main>