OHENEBA BEDIAKO ESSUMAN vs. THE CHURCH OF PENTECOST [2015]DLCA5285

Date	2015-07-28
Suit No.	SUIT NO.: H3/534/2015
Citation No.	[2015]DLCA5285

M. AGYEMANG (MRS) JA

MR. S. A. LARKAI FOR THE APPLICANT

MR. ERIC ASUMAN-ADU FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2015]DLCA5285
																																						<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" >OHENEBA BEDIAKO ESSUMAN<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE CHURCH OF PENTECOST<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT /APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL 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">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR. S. A. LARKAI FOR THE
APPLICANT <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.
ERIC ASUMAN-ADU FOR THE RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>M. AGYEMANG (MRS) JA -
SINGLE JUDGE<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">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>This is a ruling in respect
of an application for a stay of execution pending appeal of the judgment of
this court (affirming that of the court below), to the Supreme Court.<o:p></o:p>The application is supported by a nineteen-paragraph
affidavit deposed to by Sarpong-Kumankoma, Human Resource Manager of the church
who deposed that he had the authority of the applicant so to do and
furthermore, that the facts as deposed were within his knowledge and belief.<o:p></o:p>The deponent averred that the present application
was seeking to stay execution of the judgment of the High Court Accra of 28th
March 2013 Coram: Dekyem J, as affirmed by this court in its judgment of the 24th
of June 2015.<o:p></o:p>According to the deponent, being aggrieved by the
said judgment of this court that dismissed the applicant’s appeal, a further
appeal has been lodged at the Supreme Court, hence the present application. <o:p></o:p>The deponent averred that the main question for the
determination of the Supreme Court was whether the High Court and this court
were right to order the applicant to apply Ghana Health Service Consolidated
Salary structure in calculating the terminal benefits paid to the plaintiff
respondent, in face of the courts’ finding that the applicant’s conditions of
service was binding between the parties. He further deposed that the judgment
debt continued to attract interest and that while the judgment debt itself was
an amount of GHC26,917.32, accrued interest had brought it to the sum of GHC98,405.45,
which sum had been paid into court. Since the judgment of the court decreed the
accruing of interest until the date of payment, the further appeal being sought
would cause further accrual of interest. According to the deponent, the appeal before
the Supreme Court aimed at clearing “the confusion and blunder” that beset both
the High Court and this court in the determination of the question,igh ourt and this court in the determination
had a high chance of success but would be rendered nugatory as the respondent
who was not in gainful employment would not be able to refund the monies if
permitted to go into execution.<o:p></o:p>In a strongly-worded opposing affidavit, the
deponent thereto, Eric Asuman-Adu of counsel who alleged bad faith in the
appellant, denied that the High Court and this court had been involved in any
“confusion and blunder”, and deposed that the judgment of the High Court as
confirmed by this court fully appreciated the matters and correctly dealt with
them seeing that the applicant was at all material times on Ghana Health
Service scale and not on the applicant’s assumed scale as canvassed by the
appellant. He deposed that the respondent had applied for, and had since Friday
10th July 2015, been granted an order for the release of the money
to him by the High Court. The respondent he deposed, was not impecunious as
alleged by the applicant seeing that he was owner of a five-bedroom house at
Dunkwa-on-Offin and was moreover in gainful employment at Ark Clinic, Lapaz,
Accra. He firmly resisted the instant application claiming that it ought to
have been brought at the court below as that was the court of execution.<o:p></o:p>In argument learned counsel for the appellant reiterating
the matters deposed to, further contended that there was an exceptional
circumstance that spoke for the grant of the application. This circumstance was:
the fact that the determination of the question before the Supreme Court would
affect many of their employees and amount to substantial hardship if the
formula allowed by the High Court and confirmed by this court were allowed to
stand. He added that in the event of an unsuccessful appeal, the respondent
would suffer no loss as the judgment debt paid into court, had been kept in an
interest-bearing account; the balance of convenience he said lay in favour of
the applicant. <o:p></o:p>Learned counsel for the respondent who deposed to
the affidavit in opposition was not in court to respond to the arguments.<o:p></o:p>Upon reading the motion paper and the affidavits in
support of, and against the motion, and upon hearing the arguments of learned
counsel for the applicant, I granted the application for stay of execution and
reserved my reasons for so saying. I give them now.<o:p></o:p>