BENJAMIN ARYEE & 692 OTHERS v. COCOA MARKETING CO. (GH) LIMITED
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- MARIAMA OWUSU JA (PRESIDING)
- ADUAMA OSEI JA
- GYAN JA
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Constitutional Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiffs claimed they were wrongfully treated as casual workers and had their contracts wrongfully terminated by the Defendant. The trial Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs, declaring them permanent employees and awarding damages. On appeal, the appellate Court found that the Plaintiffs were initially casual workers and no law automatically converted them to permanent employees. Consequently, the Defendant had the right to terminate the Plaintiffs without notice, and the trial court's judgment was set aside.
ADUAMA OSEI
The writ of summons that initiated the above suit was filed in the Human Rights Division of the High Court, Accra, on the 23rd of December, 2009. The writ was however amended on the 11th of July, 2012, and by the amendment, the Plaintiffs/Respondents claimed against the Defendant/Appellant as follows:
“(a) damages for breach of the plaintiffs’ economic rights guaranteed under article 24(1) of the 1992 Constitution and discrimination against the plaintiffs contrary to article 17 of the 1992 Constitution.
“(b) a declaration that each plaintiff having worked for the defendant for a period of over six (6) months was deemed in law to be a permanent employee of the defendant at the date of the plaintiffs’ wrongful termination by the Defendant on 31st December, 2006.
“(c) damages for wrongful termination of employment.
“(d) interest at the commercial bank rate on all monies found due and owing from the defendant to the plaintiffs from the date of the wrongful termination of plaintiffs’ employment, that is 31st December, 2006 up to and inclusive of the date of final payment.
“(e) any other relief as may be found due to the plaintiffs as the Court may deem fit.
”(f) costs inclusive of legal fees”.
The Plaintiffs/Respondents are hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiffs” and the Defendant/Appellant is hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant”.
The basis of the Plaintiffs’ claim, as may be summarised from their statement of claim, was that even though they had worked continuously for over 4 years as employees of the Defendant company at its Tema branch, the Defendant company had treated them as casual workers and had paid them wages instead of salaries, and had also conducted its affairs with them in a manner that denied them their economic rights under the 1992 Constitution. Eventually, to their financial detriment, their employment with the Defendant had on the 31st of December, 2006, been terminated in a manner inconsistent with their status as junior staff or employees of the company.
In its statement of defence, however, the Defendant had denied that the Plaintiffs were its employees. The Defendant had alleged that the persons who worked as casual workers at its Tema branch were engaged by their gang leaders and the Defendant did not have any employer-employee relationship with them. The said casual workers, according to the Defendant, were engaged through the gang leaders on a daily basis, depending on availability of work, and none of t