AHMED ADAMS SEIDU, ABDUL LATIF, DANIEL ADONU & 97 ORS vs. AMEEN SANGARI INDUSTRIES LTD [2023]DLHC17027

AHMED ADAMS SEIDU, ABDUL LATIF, DANIEL ADONU & 97 ORS vs. AMEEN SANGARI INDUSTRI... [2023]DLHC17027

Date	2023-02-17
Suit No.	SUIT NO.: E3/01/2022
Citation No.	[2023]DLHC17027

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE BERNARD BENTIL

GORDON C. AKPADZIE ESQ.

E. K. AMUA-SEKYI ESQ.

[2023]DLHC17027
																																						<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="_Hlk152146143">AHMED ADAMS SEIDU, ABDUL LATIF,<o:p></o:p></a>

DANIEL ADONU &amp; 97 ORS<o:p></o:p>

AMEEN SANGARI INDUSTRIES LTD<o:p></o:p>

(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>

[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

<a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a>SUIT
NO.: E3/01/2022&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; DATE: 17TH FEBRUARY 2023<o:p></o:p>

</div>

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

<span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">GORDON C. AKPADZIE ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>

<span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">E. K. AMUA-SEKYI ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>

HIS LORDSHIP
JUSTICE BERNARD BENTIL<span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"><o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
tab-stops:4.5pt;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>

FACTS<o:p></o:p>

The Plaintiffs herein are former
workers of the Defendant Company Ameen Sangari Industries Limited. As a result
of the company’s dwindling fortunes, it embarked on a redundancy exercises
which affected the Plaintiffs. The company informed the Industrial and
Commercial Workers Union (ICU). However, after series of meetings between the ICU
and the Defendant on the redundancy packages to be given to the affected
workers, there was a deadlock as to the quantum of severance pay, as no
consensus could be reached. The matter was referred to the National Labour
Commission (NLC) for resolution, who subsequently referred
the parties to voluntary
arbitration. The arbitration panel in its ruling settled
on two (2) months’ salary for<o:p></o:p>

each completed year of service, pro
rata. The Defendant has still not complied with the award of the voluntary arbitration and it is this situation that has necessitated this action.<o:p></o:p>

The three main issues to be discussed
are (1) whether or not the Defendant has paid other colleagues of the
Plaintiffs (2) Whether or not the Defendant has failed to pay the Plaintiffs
their entitlements and (3) whether or not the Plaintiff can execute the award
by the Labour Commission.<o:p></o:p>

Whether or not the Defendant has paid other colleagues is an issue which is a
matter of fact, in paragraph 16 of the Plaintiff’s witness statement, it was
stated that fifty of the members gave up the fight and accepted the token of
Two (2) weeks salary for each year of service the Defendant offered. In the
submission by Ameen Sangari Industries Limited to the Arbitration Panel set up
by the National Labour Commission, they also stated that several workers have
contacted management individually and accepted the package offered to them.<o:p></o:p>

Whether or not the Defendant has failed to pay the Plaintiffs their
entitlements is also a matter of fact which will be answered
with the discussion of </main>