DAVID APASERA & 42 OTHERS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTRY OF FINANCE
2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- Ofoe, JA. (PRESIDING)
- Sowah, J.A
- Kwofie, J.A
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure
2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal, per Victor D. Ofoe, J.A., dismissed an appeal arising from claims by the plaintiffs for lump-sum payments and accrued monthly pensions, with interest from January 2009, and an order compelling the defendants to pay monthly pensions accruing from February 2016 until final payment. The claims were founded on a recommendation attributed to the Chinery Hesse CommiFee concerning Article 71 office holders between 2005 and 2008. Because the defendants challenged the constitutionality of that recommendation, the Court of Appeal referred a question to the Supreme Court asking whether, under Articles 71(3), 98(1), 114 and 295 of the 1992 Constitution, such pension recommendations were permissible. In its Ruling dated 3 December 2020, the Supreme Court answered that the recommendation was unconstitutional. Following that binding answer and finding no remaining issues, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the High Court’s 26 July 2018 judgment (Gifty Dekyem J.). Cecilia H. Sowah, J.A., and Henry Kwofie, J.A., agreed.
JUDGMENT
OFOE, J.A.:
Plaintiffs’ claims were for lump sum payments and accrued monthly pensions with
interest thereon from January 2009, and an order directed at the defendants to pay all
monthly pensions accruing from February, 2016 to date of final payment. The reliefs
were premised on a purported recommendation by the Chinery Hesse CommiFee for
Article 71 office holders between 2005 and 2008.
The defendants challenged the constitutionality of the said recommendation hence this
court referred the question “whether on the combined reading of the constitutional provisions i.e. Articles 71 (3), 98 (1), 114 and 295 it was constitutional for the Chinery
Hesse CommiFee to have recommended payment of pension to the plaintiffs.”
The Supreme Court in a Ruling dated 3rd December, 2020 has answered the question as
follows:
“That on the combined reading of Articles 71 (3), 98 (1) 114 and 295 of the 1992
constitution, it was unconstitutional for the Chinery Hesse CommiFee to have
recommended payment of pension to the plaintiffs”
There being no other or further issues for determination in the appeal before us, this
court in line with the direction of the Supreme court to carry out their answer as
determined in their Ruling of 3rd December, 2020 accordingly hereby dismisses the
appeal filed on 12th October 2018 against the judgment of the High Court coram Gifty
Dekyem J. and dated 26th July 2018 as being without merit.
(Sgd.)
VICTOR D. OFOE
[JUSTICE OF APPEAL]
(Sgd.)
Sowah, (J.A.) I agree CECILIA H. SOWAH
[JUSTICE OF APPEAL]
(Sgd.)
Kwofie, (J.A.) I also agree HENRY KWOFIE
[JUSTICE OF APPEAL]