SARAH AYELGUM & ANOR. vs. GCB BANK LIMITED [2019]DLHC10334

Date	2019-11-07
Suit No.	SUIT NO. IL/075/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10334

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS).

PLAINTIFFS ABSENT REPRESENTED BY IGNATIUS AYELGUM

DEFENDANT REPRESENTATIVE ABSENT

[2019]DLHC10334
																																						<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" >SARAH AYELGUM &amp; ANOR.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GCB BANK LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1pt; 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;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .75pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO.
IL/075/2019&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; DATE:
7TH NOVEMBER, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>PLAINTIFFS
ABSENT REPRESENTED BY IGNATIUS AYELGUM<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%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">DEFENDANT
REPRESENTATIVE ABSENT&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

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

</div>&nbsp;MOTION ON NOTICE FOR AN ORDER OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;RULING<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This application by the Plaintiffs/Applicants
is for an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain the
defendant/respondent, its assigns and privies etc. from terminating the appointments
of the plaintiffs pending the final determination of the substantive suit.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;The reason for this request, as can
be gathered from the plaintiffs’ affidavit in support of their application, is
that&nbsp; the defendant/respondent, their
employer, has requested them (plaintiffs) to submit their pre-tertiary
certificates to the Human Resources Department of the defendant and that the
defendant has evinced a clear intention &nbsp;&nbsp;to
terminate their appointments on the basis that the pre-tertiary educational
qualifications of the plaintiffs do not satisfy the expectation of the current
management of the defendant bank.&nbsp; The applicants
further claim that they were not employed by the defendant on the basis of
their pre-tertiary educational qualification and therefore the
defendant/respondent is prohibited from terminating their employment on the
basis that they do not possess such pre-tertiary educational qualifications.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The defendant has opposed this
application on the ground that a grant of same would be inimical to its
interest because it is an employer who wants to ensure that its policies and procedures
are applied equally for all its employees. The defendant also states that the
plaintiffs’ application is merely based on speculations and rumours and that
the defendant has not communicated to the plaintiffs’ that their services with
the defendant has been terminated or are no longer required.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This Court has considered the
affidavits of both parties including the annexed exhibits and has also
considered the submissions of both learned counsel and it is of the opinion
that the present application lacks merit and ought not to be granted because
the applicants have not been able to prove to this C</main>