ERISAAC PRESS vs. EMMANUEL SALLAH [2013]DLCA7009

Date	2013-02-14
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/131/2012
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA7009

KANYOKE JA (PRESIDING)

OFOE JA

LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS)

COL (RTD) G.Y. TSAHEY FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

MR. FELIX ABOAGYE FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2013]DLCA7009
																																						<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" >ERISAAC PRESS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">EMMANUEL SALLAH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTI FF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, 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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL
APPEAL NO. H1/131/2012&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 14TH
FEBRUARY, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>COL
(RTD) G.Y. TSAHEY FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT<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. FELIX ABOAGYE FOR
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;KANYOKE JA (PRESIDING), OFOE JA,
LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS) JA<o:p></o:p>

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>AVRIL
LOVELACE-JOHNSON JA<o:p></o:p>The
Defendant/Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant) seeks to have
set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 18th November 2010 by which the
redundancy of the Plaintiff/ Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the
Plaintiff) was declared unlawful, an order made that he be paid 4 (four) months
of his gross salary for each of the 13 years he worked for the Defendant plus
interest at the Commercial rate on this amount and costs of GH cedis 3,000.00.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Plaintiff had by his writ sued for <o:p></o:p>a.
A declaration by this Honourable Court that the declaration of Plaintiff as
redundant by the Defendant company without a negotiated package is wrongful and
illegal<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;b. That for 13 years that the Plaintiff worked
with the defendant’s company, the Plaintiff should be paid four (4) months of
his gross salary for each year served/worked with the defendant Company.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;c. General Damages<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;d. Costs, including the professional fees of
the plaintiff’s lawyer <o:p></o:p>The
events which led to the present dispute are that the Plaintiff among others
were given letters declaring them redundant. Apart from a promise in the said
letter to pay then two months salaries outstanding, they were given no
compensation. The said letter entitled LACK OF CONTRACTSREDUNDANCY did state in
part that ‘…likewise would your leave entitlements worked out for payment in
due course.’<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is the Plaintiffs contention that having
failed to conduct the said Redundancy exercise in accordance with law the said
exercise was wrongful and illegal.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Defendant Company’s position is that
Management had a meeting with the staff including the Plaintiff at which
meeting they were told that due to lack of contracts leading to inability to
pay them they would be made redundant but would be recalled to work if the
fortunes of the Defendant company improved. According to them Plaintiff was
once recalled to come and work but after performing the task of locating some
films he left of his own volition. In the light of all this the Defendants do
not consider the redundancy exercise wrongful or illegal. <o:p></o:p>The
following are the grounds of Appeal filed<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(1) The judge erred when he ordered that for
13 years that the Plaintiff worked with the Defendant company he should be paid
four (4) months of his gross salary for each year that he worked with the
Defendant company as redundancy award when the judge had held earlier that the
Plaintiff did not provide any basis for that and also he did not tell the Court
his monthly salary at the time he was exiting and this court cannot therefore
give a specific amount at the moment that should be paid to the Plaintiff as
redundancy award<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(2) The judge erred when he ordered that the
Defendant pays to the Plaintiff commercial rate of interest on the redundancy
with effect from August 2008 to date of payment, applying the principle of an
implied loan transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant when there was
no loan transaction between the Plaintiff and the originally borrowed.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(3) The costs Defendant was ordered to pay the
Plaintiff is excessive.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It would appear from these grounds and
counsel’s arguments thereon that the Defendant has no quarrel with the first
part of the learned High Court Judges judgement declaring the Plaintiff’s
redundancy without a negotiated package as wrongful and illegal. His app</main>