ALEX ONUMAH COLEMAN & ORS v. NEWMONT GHANA GOLD
2021
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- BAFFOE-BONNIE, JSC (PRESIDING)
- APPAU, JSC
- DORDZIE (MRS.), JSC
- HONYENUGA, JSC
- AMADU, JSC
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
- Tort Law
2021
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This appeal arose from nine former employees of a mining company who challenged their interdiction and summary dismissal after an internal disciplinary committee found them culpable for theft and unauthorized removal of gold-bearing materials. Their employment was governed by a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Ghana Mineworkers Union. The High Court had awarded extensive reliefs, including reinstatement-related payments and defamation damages, but the Court of Appeal unanimously reversed. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that the respondent failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the dismissals were perverse. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal, holding that internal disciplinary proceedings are contractual and need only be supported by evidence reasonably justifying dismissal; criminal standards do not apply. The Court rejected reliance on untendered video evidence, found several appellants’ admissions corroborative, ruled defamation unpleaded and thus improper, and concluded the dismissals were valid under the CBA.
HONYENUGA, JSC:-
INTRODUCTION
This is an appeal from the unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal, Kumasi dated the 24th day of October, 2017 reversing the decision of the High Court, Sunyani, dated 18th December, 2015. By their amended Writs and Statement of claim filed in the High Court, on the 21st January and 18th February 2011 respectively, the Plaintiffs/Respondents/Appellants who were nine former employees of the Defendants/Appellant/Respondent’s mining company instituted three suits against the Defendant/Appellant/Respondent claiming a declaration that their interdiction and subsequent dismissals was wrong in law, an order for their reinstating and all monies due to them from the period of interdiction and summary dismissal paid to them with interest or in the alternative general damages for wrongful dismissal. The three suits were consolidated and tied together by the High Court which gave judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs/Respondents/Appellants. In this appeal, the Plaintiffs/Respondents/Appellants would simply be referred to as the Appellants and the Defendant/Appellant/Respondent referred to as the Respondent.
BACKGROUND
The brief facts of this appeal are that the appellants were employed by the respondent in various capacities as technician, welder, grinding operator, control room operator among others. Their employment was governed by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) dated the 1st day of August. 2007 between the respondent and the Ghana Mineworkers Union of TUC tendered as Exhibit D. Sometime in 2009, the respondent terminated the appointments of the appellants based on adverse findings of a disciplinary committee constituted by the respondent which found the appellants liable for the theft of some gold bearing materials and or conspiring with others in that regard. Their interdiction letters also contained references to other kinds of misconduct including unauthorized removal of gold bearing material. Prior to the termination of their employment, the appellants were given a hearing before the disciplinary committee to which written statements were presented, some of which contained denials and admissions which implicated others. While the appellants contended that the admissions were obtained under duress, the respondent maintained that they were voluntarily obtained. The appellants then instituted their various suits claiming the reliefs (supra).
THE APPELLANTS’ CASE
The appellants in their statement of claim pleaded that t