2021
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In the Ghana Supreme Court, Justice Ms. Avril Lovelace‑Johnson authored the opinion on an appeal from the Court of Appeal’s 11 May 2018 decision concerning two workers whose employment documentation was irregularly processed by the defendants’ Regional Manager, Rashid Tanko. Appointment letters dated 2 April 2012 required acceptance by early April, but the plaintiffs actually received them in October 2012 and backdated their acceptances on Tanko’s instruction. They worked from October 2012, were paid until April 2014, and continued working after salaries ceased. Applying the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651) over the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), the Court held no valid employment contract existed. Nonetheless, to prevent unjust enrichment, the Court awarded salaries from October 2012 to April 2014 and additionally from May 2014 to 12 August 2015 on quantum meruit, with statutory interest under C.I 52. The Court refused restoration to payroll and general damages. Authorities cited included City & Country Waste Ltd v Accra Metropolitan Assembly and Mabsout v Fara Bros (Ghana) Ltd.
LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS), JSC: -
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 11th May 2018 by which the said court upheld the appeal of the appellants in part and made an order granting them their earnings from October 2012 to April 2014.
At the high court, the appellants had sought an order directing that their names be restored to the respondent’s payroll, recovery of their unpaid salaries for a stated period, interest on these salaries up to the date of the said restoration and general damages.
The respondents had denied their claim and also counterclaimed for certain reliefs.
The gist of the plaintiff’s case at the high court was that having been employed by the respondents on 9th April 2012, they received their salaries from that date till May 2014 when these salaries were stopped. All efforts for this situation to be rectified were unsuccessful. They stated that they suffered hardship and inconvenience as a result of this state of affairs.
It was the high court’s refusal of their claim and the grant of the respondent’s counterclaim which led to the appellant’s appeal to the court of appeal. Still dissatisfied with the outcome at that forum, they have launched the present appeal on the following grounds
(a) The court of appeal erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when it dismissed the Appellants claim for the restoration of their names unto the Respondents’ workers’ pay roll having found that the Respondent was estopped by its conduct from asserting that Appellants were not its employees.
(b) The court of appeal erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when it dismissed the Appellants’ claims to their unpaid salaries and interest thereof from the 1st May 2014 to date of judgment of the trial court having regard to the evidence on record that Respondent benefitted from services rendered to it by the Appellants for the period
(c) The court of appeal erred and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when it declined to award general damages to the Appellants for hardship and inconvenience they suffered due to the non-payment of their salaries.
(d) Additional grounds to be filed upon receipt of the record of proceedings
No such additional grounds were indeed filed.
They seek from this court a reversal of the judgment of the court of appeal and a grant of their reliefs claimed at the high court
The designation of the parties at the trial court will be maintained in this appeal.
A summary of the subm