A.G.A. 2006 EARLY RETIREES ASSOCIATION SUING PER SAMUEL BOADU AND 85 ORS vs. ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI GHANA [2022]DLCA11558

A.G.A. 2006 EARLY RETIREES ASSOCIATION SUING PER SAMUEL BOADU AND 85 ORS vs. ANG... [2022]DLCA11558

Date	2022-07-21
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/51/2020
Citation No.	[2022]DLCA11558

I. O. AMADU TANKO JSC. (PRESIDING)

HENRY A. KWOFIE JA

ANTHONY OPPONG JA

EYRAM AKYAA ANSAH ESQ. FOR APPELLANTS

WILLIAM KUSI ESQ. FOR RESPONDENTS

[2022]DLCA11558
																																						<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.G.A.
2006 EARLY RETIREES ASSOCIATION<o:p></o:p>SUING PER
SAMUEL BOADU AND 85 ORS<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ANGLOGOLD
ASHANTI GHANA<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL,
KUMASI-ASHANTI]<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;">

SUIT NO. H1/51/2020&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;&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: 1ST APRIL 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>EYRAM AKYAA ANSAH, ESQ. FOR 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;">

WILLIAM KUSI, ESQ. FOR RESPONDENTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>I.
O. AMADU TANKO JSC. (PRESIDING), HENRY A. KWOFIE JA, ANTHONY OPPONG JA<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="text-align:center;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;&nbsp;ANTHONY OPPONG, JA<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;On or about 18th March,
2015, the Plaintiff/Respondent (to be referred to simply as Plaintiff in this
delivery) caused a writ of summons together with a statement of claim to issue
against the Defendant/Appellant (also to be simply referred to as Defendant
hereafter). I must say in parenthesis that I will soon refer to Plaintiff as Plaintiffs
for reasons that will soon be unfolded in this delivery. The reliefs Plaintiff
sought against Defendant were:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;
Payment of redundancy award as earlier
on agreed between the members of the plaintiff association and the defendant
company acting per its Industrial Relations Manager<o:p></o:p>(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;
Payment of interest on any amount
payable by the defendant company under redundancy from December 2006 to the
date of final payment<o:p></o:p>(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Damages for breach of agreement<o:p></o:p>(d)&nbsp;&nbsp;
Costs as the court may deem fit.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In paragraph one of the statement of
claim, Plaintiff disclosed its capacity, namely that it is an incorporated
association limited by guarantee with members having the common interest of
pursuing their end of service benefits from their former employer, the Defendant.
Plaintiff being voluntary association disclosed that they have eighty six
members and the names of these members were attached to the writ of summons. I
can therefore confidently say that 86 persons mounted this action to vindicate
their common interest against their employer.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;The very first relief Plaintiff sought was
quite expressive of the contention of Plaintiff that there was an agreement
reached between members of plaintiff association and defendant whereby the
latter had agreed to pay the members of plaintiff association redundancy award
but, according to Plaintiff, contrary to the said agreement, members of plaintiff
association were issued with early retirement letters with the aim of reducing
the end of service benefits due the members of plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In other words, it was the contention
of plaintiff that the redundancy exit agreement was unilaterally changed by the
defendant to what was termed “early retirement scheme”, thereby depriving the
members of plaintiff association the full financial benefit they would
otherwise have received.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In fact, it was the members’ efforts
to address this alleged short change the defendant perpetuated to the detriment
of the members of plaintiff that culminated in the formation of plaintiff to
deal with the problem with one voice.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The members of plaintiff resorted to
petitions and subsequently sought the intervention of the National Labour
Commission but no succor was forth coming and so they were constrained to turn
to the court of law.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The plaintiff contends further that
prior to their exit from the defendant’s employment, the defendant had been
served with an approval to carry out redundancy as part of its labour
rationalization exercise and therefore members of plaintiff could not be
compel</main>