SAMUEL BONNEY & 4,174 OTHERS vs. GHANA PORTS AND HARBOURS AUTHORITY [2014]DLSC2912

Date	2014-01-29
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/39/2012
Citation No.	[2014]DLSC2912

WOOD (MRS) CJ PRESIDING

OWUSU (MS) JSC

DOTSE JSC

YEBOAH JSC

BONNIE JSC

ALBERT ADAARE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/ APPELLANTS.

KWAMI ADOBOR FOR THE DEFENDANT /APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.

[2014]DLSC2912
																																						<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" >SAMUEL BONNEY &amp; 4,174 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA PORTS AND HARBOURS<o:p></o:p>AUTHORITY<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, 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">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO. J4/39/2012&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; DATE: 29TH
JANUARY, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>ALBERT ADAARE FOR&nbsp;
THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/ APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

KWAMI
ADOBOR FOR THE DEFENDANT /APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>WOOD (MRS) CJ PRESIDING, OWUSU (MS)
JSC, DOTSE JSC, YEBOAH JSC, BONNIE JSC<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

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

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;OWUSU (MS) JSC.<o:p></o:p>The appellants herein are former
employees of the Respondent, Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority.<o:p></o:p>By their employment, they were
classified as casual or non-permanent workers.<o:p></o:p>In September 2002, the Respondent
Authority carried out a re-organisation exercise in which both permanent and
casual or non-permanent employees were declared redundant and therefore laid
off.<o:p></o:p>The permanent employees were paid
severance packages as provided in the collective Bargaining Agreement but the
casual/non-permanent were paid what they describe as “mere pittances” because
the Respondent contended that they were not entitled to severance packages
because the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement in respect of
severance package did not apply to them as casual/non-permanent employees.&nbsp; The Respondent termed what was given to the
casuals as “golden handshake.”<o:p></o:p>Some of the casual employees
instituted an action against the Respondent in the case of AGBESI and Others
VRS GHANA PORTS &amp; HARBOURS AUTHORITY which ended up in the Supreme Court
reported in [2007-2008] SCGLR 469.<o:p></o:p>The case of the plaintiffs in that
action was that having worked for the Respondent as non-permanent employees for
periods ranging from a year to over ten years, doing the same work as the
permanent employees and paid leave allowances, bonuses, social security
deductions and assigned staff numbers like permanent employees under the
collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), they were entitled to be treated as
permanent employees and paid the same severance packages as awarded the
permanent employees.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Respondent/Defendant therein
contended that the plaintiffs in that action were its employees whose
employment was governed by article 19 (2) (i) and (ii) of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and went on to assert that the Maritime and Dockworkers
Union (MDU) (negotiated and agreed with the Defendant for a severance package
for all non-permanent employees.<o:p></o:p>The Defendant maintained, it
complied with the provisions of the CBA relating to compensation payable to the
non-permanent employees upon the severance of their relationship with the
plaintiffs.&nbsp; It therefore denied the
plaintiffs’ claim.<o:p></o:p>At the end of the trial, Judgment
was entered in favour of the plaintiffs.&nbsp;
Dissatisfied, the Defendant Authority appealed to the Court of Appeal
which court set aside the Judgment of the High Court by a majority of 2 to 1
decision.<o:p></o:p>Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with
the Court of Appeal decision, the plaintiffs appealed to this court. &nbsp;The grounds of Appeal are as follows:<o:p></o:p>“1. The Learned Justices of the
Court of Appeal erred when they held that the plaintiffs’ action was statute
barred.”<o:p></o:p>“2. The Learned Justices of the
Court of Appeal erred when they held that the plaintiffs’ action was statute
barred upon the application of section 92 (1) of the Ghana Ports and Harbours
Authority Law (sic), 1986 (P.N.D.C.L. 160)”<o:p></o:p>“3. The Learned Justices of the
Court of Appeal erred in not making a reference to the Supreme Court under
article 130 (2) of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana on the
question of the constitutionality or otherwise of section 92(1) of the Ghana
Ports and Harbours Authority Law, (PNDCL 160) which was raised by the
appellants’ Counsel in the proceedings before the Court of Appeal for
determination by the Supreme Court before applying the said provision to the
appellants’ case.<o:p></o:p>“4. The learned Justices of the
Court of Appeal therefore erred in applying a provision that is
unconstitutional to the appellants’ case.<o:p></o:p>“5. The Learned Justices of the
Court of Appeal erred in applying section 92 (1) of the Ghana Ports and
Harbours Authority Law (PNDCL 160) when the defendant/appellant/respondent
itself pleaded the Limitation Act, 1975 (NRCD 54) which was the Act the
plaintiffs/respondents/appellants admitted was the applicable statute.<o:p></o:p>“6. The learned Justices of the
Court of Appeal erred in setting a</main>