DAVID APASARE & 42 OTHERS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL & MINISTRY OF FINANCE

OFOE, J.A.

INTRODUCTION

The plaintiffs/appellants were former Members of Parliament who served between the periods January 2001 to 2004 and 2005 to 2008. They base their claim, which we will refer to presently, on the recommendations of a constitutional body established in November 2004 by the then President of the Republic of Ghana, His Excellency Agyekum Kuffour, in terms of section 71 of the 1992 constitution. The said body, Presidential Committee on Emolument For Article 71 Constitutional Office Holders, herein after referred to as the CHC, chaired by Mrs Mary Chinery- Hesse, was to determine, amongst others, the emoluments of Article 71 office holders for both the 2001-2004 and 2005 to 2008 parliamentary term of office. The CHC concluded and submitted its report in two parts: that for 2001 to 2004 and that for 2005 to 2008. The 2001 to 2004 report was tendered at the trial as exhibit 1 by the defendants and that for 2005 to 2008 was tendered as exhibit A by the plaintiffs.

Claiming to have met the conditions set by the CHC to benefit under the CHC report ie they have served two terms, 2001-2004 and 2005 -2008 before exiting parliament, that they were of minimum ages of 50 years during those periods and not drawing any pay from the consolidated fund, they qualify in terms of the CHC report to Pension benefits and interest thereon. Since this has been denied them, they sued in the High Court claiming as per their writ of summons which we quote as follows:

“1.The lump sum of thirteen thousand, seven hundred and thirty five ghana cedis(GHC13,735.00 per plaintiff

2. Interest on the said sum at the prevailing interest rate from January 2009 to date of final payment

3. An order that a total amount of Two Huundred and Thirty three thousand, four hundred and ninety five Ghana Cedis (Ghc233,495.00) being the accrued monthly pension payments for the past 85 months and due each plaintiff be paid

4. Interest on the said sum

5. An order directed at the defendants to pay all monthly pension payments accruing from the month of February 2016 to date of final payment

6. Cost”

They were refused all their claims by the trial High Court. Believing that the trial judge did not discharge her duty satisfactorily they are in this court seeking a second opinion whether they are really not entitled to their claim.

We will refer to the plaintiff/appellant simply as the plaintiff and the defendant/respondent as defendant.

SUMMARY OF THE CASE OF THE PARTIES

THE P