NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION vs. ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI LTD [2011]DLHC4380

Date	2011-02-11
Suit No.	SUIT NO. INDL.20/09
Citation No.	[2011]DLHC4380

KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

MR. MOHAMMED ATTA FOR THE APPLICANT/RESPONDENT

MR. KIZITO BAYUO FOR THE RESPONDENT/APPLICANT

[2011]DLHC4380
																																						<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>ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI LTD<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.20/09&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 11TH FEBRUARY, 2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MR. MOHAMMED
ATTA FOR THE APPLICANT/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">

MR. KIZITO BAYUO FOR THE RESPONDENT/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">

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 court gave judgment against the
respondent/applicant on 24th day of June, 2010 and went on to order
that it should calculate the difference between the redundancy package and the
early retirement benefit in the case of each petitioner and the difference paid
to each of them within thirty days. The respondent/applicant is aggrieved and
has as a result filed notice of appeal against the decision of this court.
Consequently, it has brought the current application seeking an order of this
court to stay execution of the order pending appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The respondent/applicant identified two main
grounds for the application. These are that the appeal has greater chance of
success and that the appeal will be rendered nugatory if the application is not
granted and it succeeds on appeal. This is because the petitioners who are the
ultimate beneficiaries are unemployed and will not be in the position to refund
the amounts to the appellant in the event that the respondent/applicant
succeeds on its appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the issue of the appeal having greater chance of
success it is not for this court to say whether or not the appeal has greater
chance of success. That is for the appeal court to decide. On the issue of the
petitioners not being in the position to refund the amounts when paid to them
and the respondent/applicant succeeds on the appeal there is no evidence before
this court that all the petitioners are unemployed and, therefore, not in the
position to refund amounts paid to them if it becomes necessary. The fact that
they are no longer in the employment of the defendant does not mean they are
unemployed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>So having considered the motion paper and
supporting affidavit as well as the affidavit in opposition and having heard
both counsel for the parties in open court I am of the opinion that granting
the application as it stands will not be just for the petitioners. The court takes
notice of the fact that the applicant/respondent made the order as far back as
8th April, 2009 and the petitioners have been chasing it since that
day but have still not been paid. It must also be noted that appeal shall not
operate as stay of execution. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the light of the foregoing it is ordered that
the respondent/applicant pays the amount involved to court within 14 days. It
is further ordered that it should submit to court the full list of the
beneficiaries showing the amount due to each of them. The defendant should then
submit to court notice of payment. After that petitioners should apply to the
court as individuals for the release of the amounts after they have provided
reasonable security. If the respondent/applicant fails to pay the amount involved
to court within the stipulated time, the applicant/respondent is at liberty to
go into execution.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The application is, therefore, dismissed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>