JOSEPH KOFI ARNUMU AND GILFORD WOOLHOUSE NUNOO vs. ELECTRICITY COMPANY OF GHANA [2016]DLCA4701

JOSEPH KOFI ARNUMU AND GILFORD WOOLHOUSE NUNOO vs. ELECTRICITY COMPANY OF GHAN... [2016]DLCA4701

Date	2016-05-05
Suit No.	CASE NO.H1/219/2005
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA4701

JUSTICE OWUSU (M/S) J.A PRESIDING

JUSTICE KANYOKE J.A.

JUSTICE KUSI APPIAH J.A.

[2016]DLCA4701
																																						<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" >JOSEPH KOFI ARNUMU AND
GILFORD WOOLHOUSE NUNOO
<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/ APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ELECTRICITY COMPANY OF GHANA <o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/
RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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">

CASE NO.H1/219/2005&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: 5TH
MAY, 2016<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
OWUSU (M/S) J.A PRESIDING, JUSTICE KANYOKE J.A., JUSTICE KUSI APPIAH J.A. <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">

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

</div>KUSI-APPIAH <o:p></o:p>This is an appeal from the judgment
of the High Court, Accra dated 5 July, 2004, where the trial court
dismissed the plaintiffs claims. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 7 March, 2001, the plaintiffs,
numbering 50, who were ex-employees of the defendant company issued a writ of
summons (suit No. C 235/2001) against the defendant, Electricity Company of
Ghana, claiming the following reliefs:-<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“(1) Severance award being
entitlements due and owing to plaintiffs by virtue of their Collective
Agreement with the defendants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(2) General damages for breach of
contract.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;(3) Interest on the severance awards.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On two separate occasions in 1989
and 1991, the defendant/respondent (hereinafter referred to&nbsp; as the defendant), a Limited Liability
Company registered under the laws of Ghana to sell and distribute electricity
throughout Ghana, embarked on a restructure or staff reduction exercise which
resulted in over 900 staff including the plaintiffs /appellants (hereinafter
called the plaintiffs) being laid off or losing their jobs. According to the
plaintiffs when their employers (defendant-company) decided to dispense with
their services, they were paid various sums of money were not given severance
award as required under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), tendered in
evidence as Exhibit “B”. They contended that the terms and conditions of their
employment with the defendant-company were governed by Exhibit “B” which was
concluded between the defendant-company and Public Utility Workers Union (PUWU)
of which the plaintiffs were members. They further say that the non-compliance
with the provisions of Exhibit “B” was in breach of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) as well as the Labour Decree, 1967 (as amended) both of which
made the payment of severance award obligatory on the defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In their statement of claim, the
plaintiffs also averred that their names had been wrongly detected from the
payroll as they had not been paid their End of Service Benefits (ESB). They
were thus asking for salaries up to and including the date of final payment.
They also testified that wrong number of years served had been credited to some
of them and thus those affected had been paid less than they were entitled to.
The plaintiffs were therefore asking for the balance of their End&nbsp; of Service Benefits. Various amendments to
the claim by the plaintiffs pegged the amount being demanded to c1,746.069,618.10.
<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The defendant on the other hand
denied the claim(s) of the plaintiffs. They contended that it had paid the
plaintiffs all it was obliged to do under an agreement with the plaintiffs as
set out in the minutes of a meeting held on 22 March, 1989-Exhibit “F” where it
was agreed that plaintiffs should be paid under a formula of 47.5% irrespective
of years of service as Compensation for all entitlements since that would be
more beneficial to them than if they had been paid according to their respective
years of service. In effect, the defendant maintained that the 47.5% was a
special package paid to plaintiffs by agreement with the Public Utility Workers
Union (PUWU) (of which the plaintiffs were members) and covered all their
terminal entitlements including severance awards, over and above the amounts
plaintiffs would normally have been entitled to under the Collective Bargaining
Agreement. The defendant also pleaded the Limitation Decree, in that the
plaintiffs actions is statute-barred. They ended their statement of defence
with a plea that “the plaintiffs are not entitled to any of their reliefs or
at all.”&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>