REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, ACCRA (INDUSTRIAL& LABOUR DIVISION COURT 2) EX PARTE; PETER SANGBER-DERY AND ADB BANK LTD [2017]DLSC4665

REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, ACCRA (INDUSTRIAL& LABOUR DIVISION COURT 2) EX PARTE;... [2017]DLSC4665

Date	2017-07-26
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO: J5/53/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLSC4665

ATUGUBA JSC (PRESIDING)

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

BENIN JSC

APPAU JSC

PWAMANG JSC

KIZITO BEYUO FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT.

EZIUCHE NOWSU FOR THE DEFENDANT/INTERESTED PARTY.

[2017]DLSC4665
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>HIGH COURT, ACCRA (INDUSTRIAL&amp;
LABOUR DIVISION COURT 2)<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE; PETER
SANGBER-DERY (PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT) AND ADB BANK LTD (DEFENDANT/INTERESTED
PARTY)<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
MOTION NO: J5/53/2017&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;26TH JULY, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KIZITO BEYUO FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/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">

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>ATUGUBA JSC (PRESIDING),
BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC, BENIN JSC, APPAU JSC, PWAMANG 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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 3.5in 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;
mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">BENIN, JSC:-<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 3.5in 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;
mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">The applicant herein was an employee of the
Agricultural Development Bank Ltd., the Interested Party herein, to be
described as the Bank. In or about November 2015, the Bank declared the
applicant redundant and consequently terminated his appointment. The Bank paid
the applicant some benefits which the Bank considered to be his just
entitlements. The applicant, believing that he has been unjustly removed from
office, instituted an action by way of a writ of summons accompanied by a
statement of claim (exhibit PS1) at the High Court claiming, inter alia, these
reliefs:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 3.5in 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;
mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">1. A declaration that the termination of the
plaintiff's employment by way of redundancy without agreeing with the plaintiff
on the amount of the redundancy pay and the terms and conditions of the payment
thereof is unlawful and in breach of the contract of employment of the
plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 3.5in 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;
mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">2. An order directed at the defendant to pay the
plaintiff redundancy pay calculated at three (3) months of plaintiff's salary
for each year served by the plaintiff less the amount......paid by the
defendant as severance pay into the plaintiff's bank account.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 3.5in 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;
mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">3. General damages for wrongful termination of
plaintiff's employment.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 3.5in 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;
mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">The Bank filed a statement of defence wherein they
contended that they negotiated the severance pay with plaintiff and that in any
event what was paid to plaintiff is the industry practice which plaintiff was
aware of; see exhibit PS2. The applicant filed a reply and an application for
directions, marked as exhibits PS3 and PS4 respectively. The application for
directions was scheduled to be taken on 4th April 2017. On the said date, the
court did not consider the application at all but rather made an order
declining jurisdiction in the entire case. This is the full text of the court's
order:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:28.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;tab-stops:28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 3.5in 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;
mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:28.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;tab-stops:28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 3.5in 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;
mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">"The business for the
day is to take Directions in this matter. I have carefully perused the docket
and the Court is of the firm view that this is a dispute concerning the
Plaintiff's redundancy pay. Under section 65(5) of the Labour Act, such
disputes are to be referred to the Labour Commission. Accordingly, the Court
hereby declines to hear this matter and refers the Plaintiff to the Labour
Commission. The suit is struck out for want of jurisdiction." <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 3.5in 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;
mso-lay</main>