ABUBAKARI UMAR AND MOHAMMED HAFIZ vs. NATIONAL HEALTH AND INSURANCE AUTHORITY [2021]DLSC10159

Date	2021-03-24
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/1/2020
Citation No.	[2021]DLSC10159

APPAU JSC (PRESIDING)

PWAMANG JSC

PROF. KOTEY JSC

LOVELACE -JOHNSON (MS.) JSC

AMADU JSC

MOHAMMED ALHASSAN FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS

STEPHEN OBENG DARKO LED BY ANNETTE OHENEWAA ADUTWUM FOR THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

[2021]DLSC10159
																																						<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" >ABUBAKARI UMAR AND MOHAMMED HAFIZ<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS/ APLLELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NATIONAL HEALTH AND INSURANCE
AUTHORITY<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME 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%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CIVIL
APPEAL NO. J4/1/2020&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:
24TH MARCH, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MOHAMMED ALHASSAN
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS.<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">STEPHEN
OBENG DARKO LED BY ANNETTE OHENEWAA ADUTWUM FOR THE
DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>APPAU JSC
(PRESIDING), PWAMANG JSC, PROF. KOTEY JSC, LOVELACE -JOHNSON (MS.) JSC, AMADU
JSC<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS), JSC: -<o:p></o:p>This is an appeal against the judgment of the
Court of Appeal dated 11th May 2018 by which the said court upheld the appeal
of the appellants in part and made an order granting them their earnings from
October 2012 to April 2014.<o:p></o:p>At the high court, the appellants had sought an
order directing that their names be restored to the respondent’s payroll,
recovery of their unpaid salaries for a stated period, interest on these
salaries up to the date of the said restoration and general damages.<o:p></o:p>The respondents had denied their claim and also
counterclaimed for certain reliefs.<o:p></o:p>The gist of the plaintiff’s case at the high court
was that having been employed by the respondents on 9th April 2012, they
received their salaries from that date till May 2014 when these salaries were
stopped. All efforts for this situation to be rectified were unsuccessful. They
stated that they suffered hardship and inconvenience as a result of this state
of affairs.<o:p></o:p>It was the high court’s refusal of their claim and
the grant of the respondent’s counterclaim which led to the appellant’s appeal
to the court of appeal. Still dissatisfied with the outcome at that forum, they
have launched the present appeal on the following grounds<o:p></o:p>(a) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
court of appeal erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when it
dismissed the Appellants claim for the restoration of their names unto the
Respondents’ workers’ pay roll having found that the Respondent was estopped by
its conduct from asserting that Appellants were not its employees.<o:p></o:p>(b) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
court of appeal erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when it
dismissed the Appellants’ claims to their unpaid salaries and interest thereof
from the 1st May 2014 to date of judgment of the trial court having regard to
the evidence on record that Respondent benefitted from services rendered to it
by the Appellants for the period<o:p></o:p>(c) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
court of appeal erred and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when it declined
to award general damages to the Appellants for hardship and inconvenience they
suffered due to the non-payment of their salaries.<o:p></o:p>(d)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Additional
grounds to be filed upon receipt of the record of proceedings<o:p></o:p>No such additional grounds were indeed filed.<o:p></o:p>They seek from this court a reversal of the
judgment of the court of appeal and a grant of their reliefs claimed at the
high court<o:p></o:p>The designation of the parties at the trial court
will be maintained in this appeal.<o:p></o:p>A summary of the submissions of counsel for the
plaintiffs in support of his grounds of appeal is that having held that the
respondents were estopped by conduct from denying that the plaintiffs were
their employees, that their appointment was not fraudulent, that they had
rendered services to the respondent and that section 75(1) of the Labour Act,
2003 Act 651 qualified</main>