Try asking the following...
RULING
RULING
SOWAH, J.A.:
The application before us is a repeat application for stay of
execution pending the determination of an Interlocutory appeal filed
on 17th March, 2022 against an Order of interlocutory injunction
made on 25th February 2022 by the High Court, Labour Division.
The Court below granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the
defendant/applicant Bank [hereafter “Applicant”] from reviewing
downwards the remuneration of the plaintiff/respondent. The
plaintiff/respondent [hereafter the “respondent”] had been on sick
leave for many months due to what she contends is a spinal injury linked to her long hours of sitting while working for the Applicant
Bank.
Counsel for the Applicant submitted that at the time the application
was filed on 31st August 2021, the Respondent was receiving half of
her salary in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA) after she had been paid full salary for one year. According to
Counsel, at the time the application was heard and granted on 25th
February 2022, the period for the payment of the half-salary had
elapsed, and therefore a legal objection was raised but same was
overruled. It is the Applicant’s case that if the ruling is not stayed
the payment made would be in breach of the CBA (Article 11 B (iv)
and would also mean the Court has re-written a new contract for
the parties.
It is contended that the order made is ambiguous and in
contravention of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) signed
between the Bank and the Plaintiff as an employee. The ambiguity
argument is based on the fact that though the court below
restrained the Applicant from reviewing the remuneration of the
Respondent downwards, it at the same time ordered that payment
of half salary/remuneration to the Plaintiff continues pending the
final determination of the case.
Counsel further submitted that the Bank will suffer hardship as it
could pay the respondents' salary for an indefinite period and she
may not be in a position to refund if she is to lose the case after
trial or the award made is less than payments she had received.
It is also the argument of Counsel that directors of the Bank stand
the risk of being cited for contempt should they fail to comply with
the order. Counsel submits that these are exceptional
circumstances that warrant the grant of the application.
Responding to the arguments of Counsel for the Applicant, Counsel
for the Respondent submitted that the insta