NANA KWASI AGYAPONG vs. GHANA CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT UNION (CUA) LTD. [2019]DLHC10308

Date	2019-06-17
Suit No.	SUIT NO. IL/0077/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10308

HER LADYSHIP ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS).

DEFENDANT/APPLICANT REPRESENTED BY EMMANUEL COFFIE

JULIET D. AGBO COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT PRESENT

EDDIE YAO HARVEY COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPLICANT PRESENT

[2019]DLHC10308
																																						<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" >NANA KWASI AGYAPONG<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:117.0pt;
mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:117.0pt;
mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">vs.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:117.0pt;
mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">GHANA CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT UNION (CUA) LTD.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:117.0pt;
mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:117.0pt;
mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<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;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:117.0pt;
mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. IL/0077/2019&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:
17THJUNE, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
REPRESENTED BY EMMANUEL COFFIE<o:p></o:p>JULIET D. AGBO,
COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT PRESENT<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;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;tab-stops:117.0pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">EDDIE
YAO HARVEY, COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPLICANT PRESENT<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:117.0pt;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">HER LADYSHIP ANANDA J. AIKINS
(MRS).<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;MOTION
ON NOTICE TO SET ASIDE WRIT<o:p></o:p>RULING<o:p></o:p>The
defendant/applicant requests this Court for an order setting aside the
plaintiff’s writ on the ground that the reliefs of unfair termination being
sought by the plaintiff are matters outside the jurisdiction of this Court and
therefore the Court cannot make a pronouncement in respect of same in so far as
there are procedures spelt out under relevant statute for their determination
and which the plaintiff in the instant case has not complied with.<o:p></o:p>According
to the defendant/applicant, the Labour Act of Ghana 2003, Act 651 stipulates in
Section 64 that any complaint against unlawful/unfair termination of employment
must first be made to the National Labour Commission and not to a Court of law.
That the power to investigate unfair termination by an employer is vested
solely and exclusively in the National Labour Commission and therefore any
Court that purports to exercise such a power will be acting without
jurisdiction and all its decisions will be a nullity.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff/respondent vehemently opposed this application and stated that the
defendant’s contention that the High Court does not have jurisdiction to preside
over a case of wrongful termination was misconceived. The plaintiff urged the
Court to dismiss the application of the defendant because Article 140 (1) of
the 1992 Constitution clearly gives the High Court jurisdiction in all matters
and in particular in civil and criminal matters subject only to the Constitution.<o:p></o:p>This
Court has considered the affidavit evidence of both parties and the submissions
of both Counsel and the Court has also adverted its mind to the decision of the
Supreme Court in ‘The Republic vs. High Court, Accra (Industrial and Labour
Division 2) ex-parte Peter Sangber Dery civil motion no. JS/53/2017
unreported, which is binding on this Court especially page 5 of the decision
where Benin JSC stated <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “Upon a close look at Section 63 of the Act,
(i.e. Act 651), it will be noticed that &nbsp; the
grounds stated therein as grounds of unfair termination of employment are largely taken from the human rights provisions of
the 1992 Constitution &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; particularly
&nbsp; Articles 24, 26 and 29 and it appears
the legislature was hereby &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; seeking
to give effect to those provisions. The High Court has been given the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; jurisdiction under Article 33 (1) to
enforce these rights. What this means is that &nbsp; prior
to the coming into force of Act 651 the rights under Section 63 existed and &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; were enforceable by the High Court.
It would thus be untenable to say that &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; when
such provisions are &nbsp; transported into an
Act of Parliament, the &nbsp; jurisdiction of
the High Court is &nbsp; excluded. That could
never have been the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; intention of the
lawmaker who is deemed to know the state of the existing &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; law before the passage of Act 651.”<o:p></o:p>The
Court has also considered Section 64 of Act 651 which gives a party who
complains of unfair termination the option of filing a complaint at the
National Labour Commission and the Court is of the opinion that as rightly
pointed out by the Supreme Court in the ex-parte Sangber Dery case mentioned
supra, what Section 64 of Act 651 does is to provide new remedies for unfair
termination which did not exist at common law. The Supreme Court, per Benin
JSC, in talking of Sections 63 and 64 of Act 651 further stated as follows <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “… they merely&nbsp; affirmed existing rights but provided a
special form of remedy &nbsp;&nbsp; different from
what existed before and going </main>