EBENEZER OSUTEYE & 18 ORS v. FBN BANK GHANA LIMITED
May 19, 2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- B. ACKAH-YENSU, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- BERNASKO ESSAH, J.A.
- E. KYEI BAFFOUR, J.A.
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Contract Law
May 19, 2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal, per S. R. Bernasko Essah, J.A., dismissed an appeal by a group of former employees of FBN Bank Ghana challenging the High Court’s judgment upholding an ‘early exit’/‘early retirement’ scheme. The bank’s Board approved a package for staff aged 50–59; each appellant applied, received HR approval letters with computations, and was paid. The appellants later claimed the exercise was a disguised redundancy requiring union negotiations and sought further payments, leave commutation beyond 30 days, and vehicle retention for the 1st appellant. On a preliminary objection, the Court struck out grounds (a)–(i) for violating Rule 8(4)–(5) of C.I. 19, considering only the omnibus ground that the judgment was against the weight of evidence. On rehearing, the Court held the scheme was not redundancy: operations continued and appellants’ roles were filled. The terminations were lawful mutual agreements under Section 15(a); no duress was proven; appellants were bound by their signed terms. The 30-day leave commutation aligned with the CBA forfeiture rule, and vehicle purchase was discretionary to the employer. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed, with Ackah-Yensu, J.A. (Presiding), and Kyei Baffour, J.A., concurring.
S. R. BERNASKO ESSAH (MRS.), J.A.
This is an appeal by the Plaintiff/Appellant, against the judgment of the High Court, delivered on 18th December 2018. The judgment went in favour of the Defendant/Respondent.
The relevant antecedents to this appeal can be summarized as follows:
Plaintiffs were former employees of the Defendant Bank, who had occupied management, senior staff and junior staff positions in the Defendant bank. On or about November 2014, they were made aware of an exercise to be undertaken by the Defendant described as ‘early exit package’ for staff between the ages of 50 years and 59 years. This exercise which had been approved by the Board of Defendant, at its meeting held on 19th November 2014, provided the mode of computation of the package for the management staff and unionized staff, being the senior and junior staff.
Plaintiffs at different times, between December 2014 and April 2015, applied in writing to the Head of Human Resource, to be considered to benefit from the package, and to retire before the statutory compulsory age of 60 years. Having sought and obtained approval from the Managing Director of Defendant, the Head of Human Resource wrote to the individual Plaintiffs under the subject matter of ‘early retirement’ package informing them of the approval of their request. Attached to each letter was a computation of the buildup of the amount due them and to be credited to their individual accounts. The said amounts were credited.
The Plaintiffs alleged that the exercise was a redundancy exercise disguised and termed ‘early exit package’ and ‘early retirement package’. That being a redundancy exercise, the redundancy pay due them ought to have been negotiated with their respective unions, and in the case of the management staff, ought to have been in accordance with their conditions of service. That this was not done. They were also not consulted on the terms and conditions of the ‘early exit package’ before approval. They alleged that management, deviated from the structure of the package approved by the Board to their detriment. Further that, notwithstanding the number of leave days they had outstanding, only 30 days leave was commuted to cash. 1st Plaintiff alleged that he was denied the benefit of the policy of the defendant to purchase his vehicle which he had used for 6 years. His part payment of US$ 1,108, towards the purchase of the vehicle by the bank was also not refunded to him.
Plaintiffs further alleged that in