INSP/SHITU WABI & 76 OTHERS vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT [2022]DLSC11867

INSP/SHITU WABI & 76 OTHERS vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ATTORNEY GENERA... [2022]DLSC11867

Date	2022-11-30
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/22/2022
Citation No.	[2022]DLSC11867

YEBOAH CJ (PRESIDING)

PWAMANG JSC

AMEGATCHER JSC

AMADU JSC

KULENDI JSC

MRS. M. Y. N. ACHIAMPONG ESQ. WITH HER MICHAEL ASANTE ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS.

ALFRED TUAH-YEBOAH (DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL) WITH UMMU ZAKARI (PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY) AND PEARL AMOAH (ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS /RESPONDENTS

[2022]DLSC11867
																																						<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" >INSP/SHITU
WABI &amp; 76 OTHERS&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p><a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a>INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/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;">

CIVIL APPEAL NO.
J4/22/2022&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE:
30TH NOVEMBER 2022<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL <o:p></o:p>MRS. M. Y. N. ACHIAMPONG ESQ. WITH HER MICHAEL ASANTE
ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/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;">

ALFRED TUAH-YEBOAH
(DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL) WITH UMMU ZAKARI (PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY) AND PEARL
AMOAH (ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS /RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>YEBOAH CJ (PRESIDING), PWAMANG JSC, AMEGATCHER JSC, AMADU
JSC, KULENDI JSC <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: black; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

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

</div>&nbsp;MAJORITY OPINION<o:p></o:p>PWAMANG
JSC:-<o:p></o:p>My Lords, critical to discharging our obligation
to resolve the dispute between the parties to this appeal in accordance with
law is the need to determine the nature of the case the
plaintiffs/respondents/appellants (the plaintiffs) filed in the High Court. The
Court of Appeal in their judgment dated 22nd October, 2020 held that the
plaintiffs’ action was statute barred as their claims were based on simple
contracts of employment but the plaintiffs have refuted that vehemently &nbsp;before us.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiffs proffer two different causes of
action as the basis for suing. In one breath, they contend that they sought by
their suit to enforce judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of C.B. Bawuah
&amp; Ors v Attorney-General, dated 26th July, 1994 given against the Government
of Ghana. (That case is reported as; Yovuyibor
and Anor v Attorney-General [1993-94] 2 GLR 343). In that case, the Supreme
Court declared that the Police Administration acted in violation of the
Constitution, 1992 by compulsorily retiring three police officers from the
service before they attained the ages of sixty years as provided by article
199(1) of the Constitution. The plaintiffs herein were also in the police service
and were similarly &nbsp;&nbsp;compulsorily retired in 1993-94 at ages 55 for
the men among them and 50 for the women. They therefore contend that the
Supreme Court judgment equally applied to them. <o:p></o:p>In another breadth, the plaintiffs claim that since
their premature retirement breached the Constitution, their suit in the High
Court ought to be understood as an action to remedy a breach of the
Constitution which the Supreme Court had already held had been contravened by
the Police Administration. Basing on the two positions stated above, the
plaintiffs submit before us that the provision of the Limitations Act, 1972 (NRCD 54) relating to actions in simple
contract upon which the Court of Appeal decided the case against them is not
applicable in this case. From the stand of the action being for the enforcement
of the 1994 judgment, it is submitted that the relevant limitation period under
NRCD 54 is twelve years which applies to actions brought upon a judgment. It
has alternatively been argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, that since their
action was to vindicate the Constitution, then so long as their salaries for
the period before they turned sixty years remained unpaid, the Government of
Ghana was in continuing breach of the Constitution so their cause of action was
recurring and no limitation period applied.<o:p></o:p>My Lords, to determine the nature of a case, a court
takes into account all processes filed by the plaintiff including the nature of
the reliefs claimed, the pleadings and the actual effect of granting the
reliefs claimed, no matter the enactments referred to and the words used. In Tait v Ghana Airways Corporation (1970) 2 G
&amp; G 527, the plaintiff, a pilot, was employed by the defendant and
while he was piloting the defendant’s aircraft from Kumasi to Accra crashed in
a field near Takoradi with a loss of a passenger. He was suspended
"without prejudice" and an enquiry into the cause of the crash was
held. The report of the enquiry was presented to the Government and his
suspension was withdrawn. But in a subsequent letter signed by the managing director
of the defendant, he was informed that his services with the defendant were no
longer required and he was ordered to vacate his official bungalow. Aggrieved
by the termination of his services, he invoked the original jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court under article 106(1)(a) of the Constitution, 1969, (the
equivalent of article 130(1)(a) of the Constitution, 1992) for:<o:p></o:p>“(a) A declaration that his dismissal from the
employment of the defendant corporation communicated to the plaintiff by a
letter dated 29 May 1970 purporting to be signed by the managing director of
defendant corporation, is wrongful and invalid under the Constitution, 1969, in
particular articles 138 and 140 thereof.<o:p></o:p>(b) Consequential relief.”<o:p></o:p></s</main>