KOJO KORANTENG AMOAKO vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK [2011]DLHC5533

Date	2011-11-10
Suit No.	SUIT NO: INDL/26/10
Citation No.	[2011]DLHC5533

JUSTICE KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU

MR. GEORGE ABOGAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

MR. YAW ESHUN FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

[2011]DLHC5533
																																						<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" >KOJO KORANTENG AMOAKO<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>STANDARD CHARTERED
BANK<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<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/26/10&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 10TH NOVEMBER,
2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MR. GEORGE ABOGAH 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">

MR.
YAW ESHUN 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 31st
May, 2011, the Defendant filed notice to admit facts which the Plaintiff was
required to admit or otherwise in 14 days time. The Plaintiff was served with
the process on 1st June, 2011 but failed to respond to it within the
14 day’s time as required in the process. The Defendant, therefore, brought the
current application for an order that judgment be entered for the Defendant
based on the notice to admit facts under Order 23 Rule 6 (2) of CI 47 which the
Plaintiff has opposed. This ruling is, therefore, in respect of the said
application.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
that the Defendant required the Plaintiff to admit were as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Do you
admit that contrary to your claim the Defendant bank did not pay you
GH¢57,637.50 as the final amount for your redundancy?<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Do you
admit that the Defendant had to deduct a loan amount owed to them from your
redundancy pay leaving a balance of GH¢57,637.50 and making the total
redundancy payment GH¢124,497.92?<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According
to the Defendant/Applicant by refusing to respond to the Notice to admit facts,
the Plaintiff is deemed to have admitted the facts listed above. This is
because it is an obligation for the Plaintiff to have responded. So the court
should make an order that final judgment be entered for the Defendant on the
matters deemed to have been admitted by the Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Plaintiff has opposed the application on grounds that the Defendant’s notice to
admit is misconceived. According to him the Order 23 of CI 47 which the
Defendant is relying on does not operate in a vacuum. It must operate based on
the case put forward by the parties and the issues raised for the trial. So the
request to admit must relate to facts that are in dispute or facts that the two
parties have denied. In the current case the facts the Defendant is requiring
the Plaintiff to admit are not in controversy. What is in controversy is
whether the amount paid to the Plaintiff was negotiated with the Plaintiff or
imposed on him.<o:p></o:p>