ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI GH. LTD. vs. AGA 2006 EARLY RETIREES ASSOCIATION SUING PER SAMUEL BOADU & 85 OTHERS [2022]DLSC11691

ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI GH. LTD. vs. AGA 2006 EARLY RETIREES ASSOCIATION SUING PER SAM... [2022]DLSC11691

Date	2022-06-15
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/16/2022
Citation No.	[2022]DLSC11691

YEBOAH CJ (PRESIDING)

PWAMANG JSC

AMEGATCHER JSC

OWUSU (MS.) JSC

TORKORNOO (MRS.) JSC

BENJAMIN OSEI-BOATENG ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS.

O. K. OSAFO-BUABENG ESQ. DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.

[2022]DLSC11691
																																						<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" >ANGLOGOLD
ASHANTI GH. LTD.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>AGA
2006 EARLY RETIREES ASSOCIATION<o:p></o:p>SUING
PER SAMUEL BOADU &amp; 85 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/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="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;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. J4/16/2022&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:
15TH JUNE, 2022<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>BENJAMIN OSEI-BOATENG ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/<o:p></o:p>RESPONDENTS.<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:291.75pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">O. K.
OSAFO-BUABENG ESQ. DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>YEBOAH CJ
(PRESIDING), PWAMANG JSC, AMEGATCHER JSC, OWUSU (MS.) JSC, TORKORNOO (MRS.) 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="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="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;TORKORNOO
(MRS.) JSC:-<o:p></o:p>Background to the Dispute<o:p></o:p>The dispute between the parties in this case arises
from both factual and legal grounds. In 2006, it became necessary for the
defendant/appellant/appellant (the defendant) to undertake a reorganization of
the operations at its mines in Ghana. The reorganization involved shedding off
some of its work force so it obtained statutory approval from the Labor Department
and proceeded to hold meetings with the workers’ representatives on the
modalities of the retrenchment exercise. <o:p></o:p>The dispute raised by the plaintiff in substance
is about what was agreed at the meetings of the defendant and the workers’
representative and whether that is what was implemented by the defendant or a
different arrangement was wrongfully and unlawfully implemented. <o:p></o:p>A collateral dispute in law was raised by the
defendant. The defendant raised the contention that the plaintiff endorsed on
the writ was not clothed with capacity to sustain the action and further, Section 4(1)(b) of the Limitation Act NRCD
54 should apply to the case. This is because the plaintiffs alleged that
the cause of action occurred in December 2006 and the court action was
commenced in March 2015. Section 4(1)
(b) of NRCD 54 reads: <o:p></o:p>4. Actions
barred after six years<o:p></o:p>(1) A person
shall not bring an action after the expiration of six years from the date on
which the cause of action accrued, in the case of <o:p></o:p>b) an action
founded on simple contract<o:p></o:p>On the substantive dispute, the contention of the
plaintiffs/respondent/respondents (the plaintiffs) is that the agreement they
came to with the defendant was for the workers that were to be retrenched, to
be paid a redundancy package. The defendant/appellant/appellant (the defendant)
disputes this and maintains that the workers were to exit through a special
package called ‘early retirement’.<o:p></o:p>The defendant therefore paid the workers that it
laid off under this relevant exercise the ‘early retirement’ package in
December 2006. The workers duly received it. In 2010, a group of the workers
who were ‘made redundant’ as urged by the plaintiffs, and ‘retired early’ as
urged by the defendants, formed a guarantee company called AGA 2006 EARLY
RETIREES ASSOCIATION. <o:p></o:p>The facts on record show that in February 2012,
the AGA 2006 Early Retirees Association petitioned the Vice President of the defendant
company per its Chairman Frank Asare, and Secretary Ernest Acheampong, whose
names appear first and 36thon the schedule attached to the Writ in
this suit. The petition prayed that the Vice President help them to collect
their money or they would advise themselves. <o:p></o:p>The response of the Senior Vice President, written
on defendant’s letter head in March 2012, was that the basis of the petition is
the subject of undetermined court litigation, and he was advised that under the
circumstances, parties may only discuss a resolution of the issue with the
consent of the court and withdrawal of the suit. He said that without more, he was
unable to attend to their petition. <o:p></o:p><s</main>