ISAAC BUABENG AND OFORI ATTA AND 162 OTHERS ALL OF EHWIAA vs. FORESTRY COMMISSION [2018]DLCA6184

ISAAC BUABENG AND OFORI ATTA AND 162 OTHERS ALL OF EHWIAA vs. FORESTRY COMMISSIO... [2018]DLCA6184

Date	2018-11-28
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/21/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLCA6184

MARIAMA OWUSU J.A (PRESIDING)

HENRY A. KWOFIE J.A

AMMA GAISIE J.A

[2018]DLCA6184
																																						<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" >ISAAC BUABENG AND OFORI
ATTA AND 162 OTHERS ALL OF EHWIAA<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>FORESTRY COMMISSION<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. H1/21/2018&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: 28th
NOV 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>HENRY KWOFIE&nbsp;&nbsp; J.A<o:p></o:p>This
appeal is taken against the ruling of the High Court sitting in Kumasi.&nbsp; In his ruling dated the 3rd of March 2016,
the trial judge held that the plaintiffs/appellants do not have a cause of
action against the respondent because the respondent has never at any point in
time employed the appellants and moreover, there is no employment contract
between the appellants and the respondent to be enforced. <o:p></o:p>By
their amended writ of Summons filed on 23rd June 2015, the
plaintiffs/appellants claimed against the defendant/respondent the following
reliefs:<o:p></o:p>a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An order for the payment of two years
(2) salaries of the workers of Ehwiaa Wood Products Ltd.<o:p></o:p>b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Interest on the said amount from June
2008 till date of final payment.<o:p></o:p>c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Three months salary in lieu of notice
of redundancy <o:p></o:p>d)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Interest on the said amount from June
2010 up to date of final payment.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>e)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An order for the payment of normal
severance awards to the workers less whatever has been paid to each person.<o:p></o:p>f)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Interest on the said amount from June
2010 to date of final payment.<o:p></o:p>g)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; General damages.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At
the application for Directions stage, the defendant filed one additional issue
that is whether or not the defendant is the proper entity to be sued regarding
all the reliefs which plaintiffs are seeking.&nbsp;
The trial judge took the view that the additional issue raised by the
defendant, if successful, would make a full trial in the case unnecessary and
therefore set the issue down for preliminary legal arguments and ordered both
counsel to file written submissions.&nbsp; In
a ruling delivered on 3rd March 2016, the trial judge held that the defendant
is not the proper entity to be sued regarding all the reliefs the plaintiffs
are seeking and accordingly dismissed the writ against the defendant.&nbsp; The plaintiffs dissatisfied with the said
ruling filed the instant appeal on the following grounds:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The ruling is against the weight of
evidence <o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; His Lordship erred in holding that the
defendant is not the proper party to be sued when by the defendant’s own
conduct, the defendant and Ehwiaa Wood Products are the same.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; His Lordship erred in law when he held
that the plaintiffs have no cause of action against the defendant when by the
conduct of the defendant, it can be said that Ehwiaa Wood Products Ltd was the
agent of the defendant.<o:p></o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Alternatively, His Lordship erred in
failing to hold that by the dominated (sic) subsidiary, Ehwiaa Wood Product is
the agent or partner of the defendant Company.&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>The
reliefs sought from this Court are: <o:p></o:p>i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An order allowing the appeal <o:p></o:p>ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An order setting aside the ruling of the
High Court Kumasi dated the 3rd March 2016<o:p></o:p>iii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The respondent pays the appellants cost
of the appeal and of the proceedings below.<o:p></o:p>The
short ruling appealed from is found at pages 101 to 103 of the Record of Appeal
and the amended notice of appeal is found at page 106 of the same record.&nbsp; Having read the record of appeal generally
and particularly the pleadings, exhibits filed by the parties and the written
submissions, I am of the view that the trial judge was right in setting down
the issue of whether the defendant was the proper party to be sued for legal
arguments.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>