KWADWO DANKWA & 3 ORS. vs. ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI LTD [2018]DLSC17129

Date	2018-06-07
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J8/66/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLSC17129

ATUGUBA JSC (PRESIDING)

ANSAH JSC

ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC

YEBOAH

JSC PWAMANG JSC.

KIZITO BEYUO FOR THE APPLICANT

KWAME ASARE BEDIAKO FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[2018]DLSC17129
																																						<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" ><a name="_Hlk152146143">KWADWO DANKWA &amp; 3 ORS.<o:p></o:p></a>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a><o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

CIVIL
MOTION NO. J8/66/2018&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;DATE: 7TH JUNE 2018<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;tab-stops:4.5pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">KIZITO BEYUO FOR THE APPLICANT,<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;tab-stops:4.5pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">KWAME ASARE BEDIAKO FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM <o:p></o:p>ATUGUBA JSC (PRESIDING),
ANSAH JSC, ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC, YEBOAH, JSC,&nbsp;PWAMANG JSC<div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: black; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;tab-stops:4.5pt;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid black 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>PWAMANG,
JSC:- By a motion on notice filed on 8th March, 2018,
the Applicant herein prayed the court to make an order staying proceedings
pending before the High Court, Kumasi in Suit No C3/4/2011 intituled Kwadwo
Dankwa &amp; 252 Ors V Anglogold Ashanti Ltd. The background to the application
is as follows; The respondents are persons who between 1994 and 2001 worked for
the applicant at its mine at Obuasi in the Ashanti Region. The applicant
treated them as casual or temporary workers and when their services ended they
were disengaged as such without terminal benefits. Respondents subsequently
became aggrieved by the terms on which they were disengaged by the applicant. They
contend that in substance they worked as permanent workers during the period
they were at applicant's mine but were treated as casual or temporary workers
when they exited. In 2011 they decided to challenge their status as casual or
temporary workers but were under the impression that &nbsp;an action in court for declaration of their
proper status would be caught by the provisions of Limitation Act 1972, &nbsp;(NRCD 54). Therefore,
they applied ex parte under the Act
to the High Court, Kumasi for extension of time to bring an action against the
applicant. The High Court extended the time for them and they filed the suit
under reference in these proceedings. When applicant was served with the writ of summons,
it decided to attack the order granting extension of time to the respondents.
It filed a motion in the High Court and argued that the court had no jurisdiction
to extend time stating that the cause of action of the respondents was in
contract and Section 4 of the Act pursuant to which the judge extended the time
did not authorise extension of time for claims based on contract. The High
Court acceded to the applicant's prayer, set aside the order extending time and
dismissed the action of the respondents. The respondents appealed the decision
of the High Court and the Court of Appeal allowed their appeal and directed the
applicant to file a defence to the action wherein it may raise its defence that
the action is statute barred. The applicant has appealed against the decision
of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, proceedings in the High Court
resumed and the respondents applied for leave to file interrogatories to be answered
by the applicant and directions for trial. In order to forestall the
proceedings in the High Court, the applicant filed a motion praying the High Court
to stay its own proceedings in the case pending the determination of its appeal
in the Supreme Court. The High Court refused that application but applicant has
not appealed against the refusal. Applicant's next move was this present application. At the hearing of the application we enquired from
learned Counsel for the &nbsp;applicant,
Kizito Beyuo, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under which the application
was brought since there can be no appeal in this court against a decision of the
High Court the proceedings of which applicant was seeking to have stayed.
Counsel said he would rely on Article 129(4) of the Constitution, 1992 and the
inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. He contended that under Article
129(4) the Supreme Court can assume the powers of any court in Ghana so we
should assume the powers of the High Court and stay its proceedings. Counsel
argued that their appeal in the Supreme Court was likely to succeed so to save
cost of litigation the proceedings in the High Court ought to be stayed.
Article 129(4) of the Constitution, 1992 that has been relied on as conferring
jurisdiction on the court states as follows;<o:p></o:p>"129(4)
For the purposes of hearing and determining a matter within its jurisdiction
and the amendment, execution or the enforcement of a judgement or order made on
any matter, and for the purposes of any other authority, expressly or by
necessary implication given to the Supreme Court by this Cons</main>