EMMANUEL C. PLANGE & 437 ORS v. GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. & ORS

SOPHIA ADINYIRA(MRS.) JSC (PRESIDING):-

This application for a review of the judgment of the ordinary bench of 21 May 2014 is brought by 10 out of the 511 former employees of Ghana Commercial Bank (GCB) in the consolidated cases, commenced on 28 October 2006 and 18 November 2006 respectively. The reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs from their former employer were mainly for a declaration that they were entitled to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the Special Pension Scheme set up by the Defendant for the benefit of its employees; and an order for specific performance directed at the Defendant to compute and pay to the Plaintiffs their pension benefits under the said scheme with interest thereon to date of final payment. The Defendant resisted the claim on the grounds that the pension scheme was abrogated in December 1990 and since the Plaintiffs alleged rights accrued upon their respective dates of retirement their action was statute barred.

The High Court held that the abrogation of the pension scheme in December 1990 was null and void and of no legal effect as it was done without the permission of the Commissioner as required by section 24 of the Social Security Act, NRCD 127; [repealed] and consequently the pension scheme continued to be in existence. The High Court entered judgment for the Plaintiffs. And the Court of Appeal affirmed this judgment.

On appeal before the ordinary bench of the Supreme Court, the main issue was whether the Defendant had the power to terminate the private pension scheme without reference to the Commissioner. On 21 May 2014, the ordinary bench of the Supreme Court reversed the finding of the High Court by holding that Section 24 (5) of the Social Security Act, NRCD 127 was inapplicable to the situation where an employer voluntarily decided to wind up its own private scheme. Accordingly the Court held that the winding up of the Scheme by the Defendant was not in contravention of NRCD 127. The Court however held the abrogation of the pension scheme by the Defendant was a breach of a term of contract of employment.

On the liability of GCB the ordinary panel held that it is only the category of staff members who were on retirement before the abrogation of the scheme on 31 December 1990 (and satisfied the conditions set in rule 3 of the regulations of the Special Pension Scheme) that were entitled or competent to a claim for specific performance. Further, by virtue of section 24 of the Limitation Decree such claim is n