ALEX ONUAMAH COLEMAN AND DAVID KOOMSON vs. NEWMONT GHANA GOLD AND EMMANUEL ATSIAFU AND 6 OTHERS VS. NEWMONT GHANA GOLD [2017]DLCA4479

ALEX ONUAMAH COLEMAN AND DAVID KOOMSON vs. NEWMONT GHANA GOLD AND EMMANUEL ATSIA... [2017]DLCA4479

Date	2017-10-24
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/23/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLCA4479

AYEBI J.A. (PRESIDING)

TORKORNOO (MRS) J. A.

DOMAKYAAREH (MRS) J. A.

DOE TSIKATA

AMOAKO FRIMPONG

[2017]DLCA4479
																																						<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 ONUAMAH COLEMAN AND
DAVID KOOMSON vs. NEWMONT GHANA GOLD<o:p></o:p>AND<o:p></o:p>EMMANUEL ATSIAFU AND 6
OTHERS VS. NEWMONT GHANA GOLD<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, KUMASI]<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">

SUIT NO. H1/23/2017&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:&nbsp; 24TH OCT., 2017<o:p></o:p>

AMOAKO
FRIMPONG<o:p></o:p>

</div>TORKORNOO (MRS), J.A.<o:p></o:p>Three
cases were consolidated into one suit and adjudged. On 7th December 2009,
Emmanuel Atsiafu, Ernest Korang Yeboah, Fred Sarbah, Ebenezer Mills and Andrew
Hayford (for the purposes of clarity in this judgment, hereinafter referred to
as 1st to 5th Respondents respectively), jointly commenced an action against
Newmont Ghana Gold, the Appellant. On 15th December 2009, Alex Onumah Coleman
and David Koomson (hereinafter referred to as 6th and 7th Respondents)
commenced a second suit against the Appellant.&nbsp;
On 8th January 2010, Isaac Kongetey, Isaac Boadu and David Awelgiyah
(Kongetey and Boadu are hereinafter referred to as 8th and 9th Respondents)
started the third action against the Appellant. The trial high court heard the
cases together.<o:p></o:p>The
final claims that the court had to adjudicate for the nine Respondents were
essentially the same. They comprised a claim for a declaration that their
purported interdiction and subsequent dismissal of the Plaintiffs from the
defendant’s employment is wrong in law; a claim for general damages for
wrongful dismissal and costs. The final amended writ of summons and claims for
the 4th Respondent Ebenezer Mills prayed for reinstatement and payment of ‘all
monies due the 4th Plaintiff running from the alleged period of interdiction
and summary dismissal to be paid to the 4th Plaintiff’<o:p></o:p>The
averments of the Respondents in their Statements of Claim were as follows: <o:p></o:p>At
the time of the suit, 1st Respondent was employed as a plant mechanic
technician, 2nd Respondent as a Mechanical Technician, 3rd Respondent was a
multi skilled operator, 4th Respondent as Mechanical Technician, and 5th
Respondent was a mechanic/welder. The 6th and 7th Respondents were also multi
skilled operators. The 8th Respondent was a grinding operator, and 9th
Respondent was a control room trainee. Awelgiyah was a leading hand.<o:p></o:p>In
their pleadings, the 1st to 5th Respondents contended that the 1st Respondent
had developed sight problems as a result of his work schedule. The 2nd
Respondent had also developed ear and heart problems.&nbsp; Again, on 25th August 2009, a white employee
called David Dennison threw a new valve behind the 2nd Respondent which nearly
injured the 2nd Respondent, and he reported this conduct to the maintenance
management. It was after this incident that the five Respondents were served
with a Notice of Interdiction for the following offences contrary to Appendix B
and C of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Appellant Company and
the Ghana Mine Workers Union of TUC which the Appellants belonged to:<o:p></o:p>-theft
of gold bearing material and/or unauthorized removal of gold bearing material, <o:p></o:p>-fraud
and deliberate falsification of records; <o:p></o:p>-behaving
negligently resulting in significant loss or damage to company equipment of
property; <o:p></o:p>-lying
to a supervisor and misuse of levels of authority. <o:p></o:p>They
were later served with invitations to disciplinary committee hearing where they
denied the charges leveled against them. According to the Respondents, the
Appellant Company could not prove its case against them at the disciplinary
hearings. They were however served with summary dismissal letters in which the
Appellant stated that they were guilty of conspiring with others to steal gold
bearing material and theft of gold bearing material from their process plant. <o:p></o:p>4th
Respondent presented an amended statement of claim after leave was given to
him. He contended that he was taken into a room by security officers on 12th
September 2009 where he was interrogated by one man who identified himself as
an investigator. The investigator wrote material down and recorded the
interrogation. He denied involvement in theft of gold bearing material. The
investigator asked him to sign what he had written on the sheet without being
allowed to read through the sheet. He was ‘coerced’ by the investigator to sign
it. After signing the written record, the investigator gave him an interdiction
letter. He appeared before a disciplinary committee meeting where he denied the
charges and the charges could not be proved. He was however served with a
summary dismissal letter. <o:p></o:p>6th
and 7th Respondents presented essentially the same case above without the
preface of information on any pre-existing illnesses or issues with other
employees. They were also given notices of interdiction with the same charge,
invited to a disciplinary committee meeting where they denied the charges and
alleged that the Appellant Company could not prove its case. They were given
letters of termination and summary dismissal for alleged conspiracy to steal
and stealing gold-bearing material from the process plant.<o:p></o:p>