ALEX YAW NSIAH & 88 ORS. vs. GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK [2015]DLCA4480

Date	2015-12-03
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL: SUIT NO: H1/154/2014
Citation No.	[2015]DLCA4480

KUSI-APPIAH J.A. Presiding

GYAESAYOR J.A.

SOWAH (MS.) J.A.

MR. KIZITO BEYUO FOR RESPONDENTS

SORY@LAW SOLICITORS FOR APPELLANT

[2015]DLCA4480
																																						<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" >ALEX YAW NSIAH &amp; 88
ORS.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<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">

CIVIL APPEAL: SUIT NO:&nbsp; H1/154/2014&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:
3RD DECEMBER, 2015<o:p></o:p>

SORY@LAW,
SOLICITORS FOR APPELLANT<o:p></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>KUSI-APPIAH, ( J.A.):<o:p></o:p>On
26th May, 2011, the High Court (Fast Track Division), Accra entered judgment in
favour of the plaintiffs/respondents (hereinafter referred to as the
plaintiffs) against the defendant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the
defendant).&nbsp; The defendant being
dissatisfied with the court’s decision, appealed to this court.<o:p></o:p>By
their amended writ of summons, the plaintiffs numbering 89, claimed against the
defendant as follows:<o:p></o:p>“a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A
declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to payment of pension under the
defendant’s Special Pension Scheme established on 1st October, 1976. <o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Recovery
from the defendant the plaintiff’s pension entitlements as per the Special
Pension Scheme as amended.<o:p></o:p>c. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Interest
on (b) above at the prevailing bank rate from the date each plaintiff left the
defendant bank’s employment up to the date of payment.<o:p></o:p>d.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Costs
of these proceedings including lawyer’s costs.”<o:p></o:p>The
facts relied on by the parties to establish their respective cases were not
complicated.&nbsp; The plaintiffs are all
former employee of Ghana Commercial Bank, the defendant herein, having been
employed and worked for the defendant at various periods of time between 1954
and 2002.&nbsp; The undisputed evidence on
record was that on or about 1st October, 1976, the defendant established a
scheme known as the Ghana Commercial Bank Special Pension Scheme.&nbsp; The scheme was a non-contributory
scheme.&nbsp; The scheme was to be financed
and resourced from the profits of the bank and no employee was required to make
any contribution to the scheme.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>Under
the scheme, the defendant undertook to make payments of money to its employees
who at the time of retirement (be it voluntary or compulsory on attaining 45
years or 60 years respectively), have served the defendant bank for a minimum
of 15 years, as Special Pension Scheme.<o:p></o:p>According
to the plaintiffs, the objectives for the scheme was to reward qualified staff
for their long service and devotion to duty, to serve as incentive for the
staff to serve longer with the defendant bank and provide security for the
staff during their life in retirement.<o:p></o:p>It
is the case of the plaintiffs that upon retiring from the employment of the
defendant’s bank and having qualified for payment under the scheme as part of
their conditions of service, the defendant neglected to pay the plaintiffs
their accrued pension under the scheme on the ground that the scheme was
abrogated by the defendant on 18th December, 1990.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiffs contended that under the scheme the defendant could not abrogate the
scheme which had guaranteed them some financial entitlements upon satisfying
the conditions stipulated in the scheme.&nbsp;
They therefore argued that the defendant’s contention that it had
terminated the scheme is untenable.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiffs contended further that in March 2003, the defendant unilaterally
paid certain sums of monies into their respective accounts describing it as
their pension under the scheme but plaintiffs remonstrated that the sums paid
did not satisfy what was due them and thereby described it as part payment of
their entitlements.&nbsp; They pleaded that on
account of the part payment by the defendant to them under the scheme, the
plaintiffs action is not statute barred as contended by the defendant.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiffs testified that in July 2004, the defendant paid to certain named
ex-employees of the Bank who retired from the defendant’s employment after
December, 1990 their pension under the scheme on grounds that they had worked
for more than 15 years and had attained more than 45 years and therefore
qualified under the special pension scheme.&nbsp;
The plaintiffs insisted that since the defendant had earlier made
payments under the scheme to some of its employees, the plaintiffs were also
entitled on equitable grounds to equal treatment with their former co-workers
who enjoyed the benefit of the scheme.<o:p></o:p>For
its part, the defendant resisted the plaintiffs claim and contended that the
Special Pension Scheme had since 1990 been abrogated by the defendant bank t</main>