2022
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
AngloGold Ashanti (Ghana) Limited reorganized its operations in 2006 and laid off workers after consultations with employee representatives. The workers, through the AGA 2006 Early Retirees Association, contended that agreed redundancy benefits were not paid; the company maintained that an early retirement scheme applied and paid those packages in December 2006, which were accepted. The Association, a guarantee company with three subscribers, petitioned the company in February 2012 and, in March 2015, the Association and 86 named individuals sued seeking redundancy awards, interest, and damages. The High Court ruled for the plaintiffs and the Court of Appeal affirmed. On second appeal, the Supreme Court addressed capacity and limitation, holding that only the Association and its three subscribers were not time-barred, corrected misjoinder, and, on the merits, determined that the applicable 2006 collective agreement provided a different redundancy formula, that plaintiffs had been paid more than entitlement, and vacated the trial court’s orders.
TORKORNOO (MRS.) JSC:-
Background to the Dispute
The dispute between the parties in this case arises from both factual and legal grounds. In 2006, it became necessary for the defendant/appellant/appellant (the defendant) to undertake a reorganization of the operations at its mines in Ghana. The reorganization involved shedding off some of its work force so it obtained statutory approval from the Labor Department and proceeded to hold meetings with the workers’ representatives on the modalities of the retrenchment exercise.
The dispute raised by the plaintiff in substance is about what was agreed at the meetings of the defendant and the workers’ representative and whether that is what was implemented by the defendant or a different arrangement was wrongfully and unlawfully implemented.
A collateral dispute in law was raised by the defendant. The defendant raised the contention that the plaintiff endorsed on the writ was not clothed with capacity to sustain the action and further, Section 4(1)(b) of the Limitation Act NRCD 54 should apply to the case. This is because the plaintiffs alleged that the cause of action occurred in December 2006 and the court action was commenced in March 2015. Section 4(1) (b) of NRCD 54 reads:
4. Actions barred after six years
(1) A person shall not bring an action after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued, in the case of
b) an action founded on simple contract
On the substantive dispute, the contention of the plaintiffs/respondent/respondents (the plaintiffs) is that the agreement they came to with the defendant was for the workers that were to be retrenched, to be paid a redundancy package. The defendant/appellant/appellant (the defendant) disputes this and maintains that the workers were to exit through a special package called ‘early retirement’.
The defendant therefore paid the workers that it laid off under this relevant exercise the ‘early retirement’ package in December 2006. The workers duly received it. In 2010, a group of the workers who were ‘made redundant’ as urged by the plaintiffs, and ‘retired early’ as urged by the defendants, formed a guarantee company called AGA 2006 EARLY RETIREES ASSOCIATION.
The facts on record show that in February 2012, the AGA 2006 Early Retirees Association petitioned the Vice President of the defendant company per its Chairman Frank Asare, and Secretary Ernest Acheampong, whose names appear first and 36thon the schedule attached to