FREDRICK ABBAN & 9 ORS vs. TAKORADI FLOUR MILLS COMPANY LIMITED [2023]DLSC16119

Date	2023-05-17
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/75/2021
Citation No.	[2023]DLSC16119

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)

LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC

AMADU JSC

PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC

KULENDI JSC

E. K. AMUA-SEKYI ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.

NANA KONDUA ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS.

[2023]DLSC16119
																																						<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" >FREDRICK
ABBAN &amp; 9 ORS<o:p></o:p>

(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>

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

<a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a>TAKORADI FLOUR MILLS COMPANY
LIMITED<o:p></o:p>

(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>

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

CIVIL APPEAL NO.
J4/75/2021&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: 17TH MAY
2023&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

</div>

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

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;text-align:justify;line-height:
normal;tab-stops:82.3pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">NANA KONDUA ESQ. FOR
THE PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>

CORAM&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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">DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING),
LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC, AMADU JSC, PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC, KULENDI
JSC&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;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;<o:p></o:p>

MAJORITY
OPINION <o:p></o:p>

AMADU JSC:-<o:p></o:p>

INTRODUCTION:<o:p></o:p>

(1)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The ascription of a “worker” or
“employee” at the workplace or in an employment respectively, carries
with it various legal incidents. The employed is placed in a status of benefit
in terms of being entitled to be remunerated for work done or enjoy such
entitlements that come with the contract of employment. Statutorily also, the
employer is mandated to contribute to the social security benefits of the
employee to the appropriate state agency. Conversely, the worker or employee
may be liable for&nbsp;&nbsp; any breach of the
contract of employment. Correspondingly, the employer is advantaged with the
use of the employee for purposes of the employment as defined per the contract
of employment. However, the employer could be vicariously liable for any
negligence committed by the worker/employee in the course of his/her
employment. In all of these situations, the law is will not necessarily infer
the relationship merely upon allegations, but rather on clearly defined
circumstances. <o:p></o:p>

(2)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
My Lords, in this appeal, we are confronted with a
situation, where the parties are disputing the status of the
Plaintiffs/Appellants/Respondents (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiffs”)
in the Defendant/Respondent/ Appellant’s (hereinafter
referred to as “the Defendant”) company.&nbsp;
That is to say, whether Plaintiffs are permanent workers of the
Defendant or independent contractors? Whiles Plaintiffs claim to be permanent
employees of Defendant, and thus, entitled to SSNIT contributions from
Defendant, Defendant argues contra, that the Plaintiffs are not their
employees. Thus, closely observed, the key issue that arises from this contest
is, whether the Plaintiffs are first and foremost, workers/employees of the
Defendant company. If they are, then, are they casual employees or permanent
employees? A determination of the later distinction may positively implicate
the incidents associated with such employment status. <o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

BACKGROUND AND
FACTS<o:p></o:p>