ALEX ABOAGYE MOSES ESSIEN & 257 OTHERS v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL & THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR
2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ATUGUBA (PRESIDING)
- ANSAH JSC
- BAFFOE- BONNIE JSC
- BENIN JSC
- PWAMANG JSC
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Corporate Law
2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal seeking compensation post-BSL liquidation. The trial court ruled for the plaintiffs but lacked detailed findings of fact. The Court of Appeal overturned this based on insufficient evidence of a permanent employment contract. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, pointing to the absence of written contracts as required by law and the inapplicability of newer statutes to pre-existing employment relationships.
JUDGMENT
BENIN, JSC:-
The plaintiffs/respondents/appellants, hereafter called the plaintiffs who claimed to be ex-employees of the defunct Black Star Line (BSL), brought an action against the 1st defendant/appellant/respondent, hereafter called the 1st defendant, and the Divestiture Implementation Committee, later substituted by the Official Liquidator as the 2nd defendant/appellant/respondent, hereafter called the 2nd defendant, claiming compensation for loss of employment arising from the official liquidation of their employer, the BSL. The endorsement on the writ of summons reads: ‘The plaintiffs claim against the defendants jointly and severally is for uniform adequate compensation in the form of ex-gratia award and/or end-of service benefits, and/or work entitlements’.
The case pleaded by the plaintiffs was that they served in various capacities whilst in the employment of the BSL. That the BSL having been divested, they as ex-employees were entitled to be compensated in line with existing practice. However, nothing was paid to the plaintiffs, notwithstanding all their efforts to be paid their due entitlements. All appeals to the Government yielded no results, despite assurances given to them by some state officials.
The 2nd defendant whilst denying that the plaintiffs have any case against it, pleaded that any such claim was statute-barred. The 2nd defendant averred that payment of compensation is a matter of law or deducible from a collective bargaining agreement or contract but the statement of claim has not provided any basis for the claim and it’s thus unmaintainable.
The 1st defendant averred that the BSL passed a special resolution under section 174 of the Companies Code, 1963 (Act 179) to wind up the company by way of an official liquidation in accordance with Part 1, section 2(1) of the Bodies Corporate (Official Liquidation) Act, 1963 (Act 180). They further averred that the Government could not be sued as it was just a shareholder of BSL and once official liquidation was commenced it was only the 2nd defendant that could be sued. That it was the duty of the liquidator to ensure that the creditors of the company were paid when the assets of the company had been realized. That the plaintiffs’ petitions were responded to out of courtesy and these have no binding effect.
Evidence was led at the hearing. In a terse statement, the trial High Court judge entered what he described as judgment for the plaintiffs on 10th March 2009. This is the