SIMON AVINU & 59 ORS vs. SEAWELD ENGINEERING LIMITED ,SEADRILL GHANA OPERATIONS LTD [2023]DLCA17146

SIMON AVINU & 59 ORS vs. SEAWELD ENGINEERING LIMITED ,SEADRILL GHANA OPERATION... [2023]DLCA17146

Date	2023-02-23
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/12/2022
Citation No.	[2023]DLCA17146

HENRY A. KWOFIE JA (PRESIDING)

ANTHONY OPPONG JA

SOPHIA BERNASKO ESSAH JA

MR. DICK ANYADI WITH EDWARD B. BOADU AND ALBERT DUOSE FOR PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/CROSS-APPELLANTS

VICTOR ADAWUDU FOR 2ND DEFT/RESPONDENT

SEFAKOR KUENYEHIA WITH PHILIP NYARKO J. KPESESE & B-BENTSI ENCHILL FOR 1ST DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/CROSS-RESPONDENT

[2023]DLCA17146
																																						<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" ><div class="WordSection1">

<a name="_Hlk152849823">SIMON AVINU &amp; 59 ORS <o:p></o:p></a>

(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENT/CROSS-APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>

vs.<o:p></o:p>

(1ST DEFT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>

SEADRILL
GHANA OPERATIONS LTD <o:p></o:p>

(2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>

[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>

SUIT NO. H1/12/2022&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;DATE: 23RD&nbsp;FEBRUARY 2023<o:p></o:p>

</div>

COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>

MR. DICK
ANYADI WITH EDWARD B. BOADU AND ALBERT DUOSE FOR
PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/CROSS-APPELLANTS<o:p></o:p>

VICTOR
ADAWUDU FOR 2ND DEFT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

SEFAKOR
KUENYEHIA WITH PHILIP NYARKO, J. KPESESE &amp; B-BENTSI ENCHILL FOR 1ST
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/CROSS-RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>

HENRY A.
KWOFIE JA (PRESIDING), ANTHONY OPPONG JA, SOPHIA BERNASKO ESSAH JA<o:p></o:p>

<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;

ANTHONY OPPONG, JA:<o:p></o:p>

For the sake of brevity, I will refer to the parties in
this appeal the same way they were nomenclatured at the trial high court. That
is the plaintiﬀs/respondents/1st to 59th plaintiﬀ’s cross-appellants will be referred to as plaintiﬀs; 1st defendant/ appellant/respondent
will be referred to as 1st defendant and 2nd defendant/ respondent/respondent
will be referred to as 2nd defendant.<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

The 1st defendant, a private employment agency
registered and carrying on business in Ghana
and 2nd defendants, an oﬀshore oil
and gas drilling company registered in Ghana and operating its business of oﬀshore oil
and gas drilling by way of exploration, entered into an agreement in the year
2013 by which the 1st defendant supplied
skilled and technical workers like engineers, roughnecks, lead roughnecks,
painters, welders etc. to work on the 2nd defendant’s
oil rig, the West Leo in Ghana’s oﬀshore oil and gas
exploration and or extraction area.<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

According to the terms of the employment, the skilled
labour workers supplied by 1st defendant to work on the 2nd defendant’s oil rig, were to remain
the employees of the 1st defendant and as
such the 1st defendant was to be paid a
determined amount of money for the services
rendered by its employees by the 2nd defendant and the 1st defendant
in turn would pay its employees. As a matter of fact, the 2nd defendant did not have control of
the 1