GH - F. M. A. ARYETTEY AND ORS v. GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK

RULING

WOOD G. (MRS)

There has been a slight misdescription of the parties in these proceedings and I think it is my duty to rectify the errors, however, inconsequential they may be, F A Aryettey and others, were at the hearing of the substantive appeal, the Plaintiffs/Respondents and not Defendant/Respondents as they have been described in the motion paper and supporting affidavit. Similarly, the Ghana Commercial Bank were the Defendant/ Appellants, not the Plaintiff/Appellants. In these proceedings, however, I shall refer to them as Appellants and Respondents respectively. The Respondents who at the time, were the Executive Members of the Ghana Commercial Bank Pensioners Association instituted representative proceedings on their own behalf and on behalf of seven hundred and sixty-four other members of the Association. They sought primarily to recover pension they maintain they are entitled to at their retirement from the Bank. The Bank unfortunately resisted the claim and applied for full particulars of those others on whose behalf they sued. This simple application was however turned down by the trial judge who thought that among other things, allowing the application would delay the trial unduly. On appeal, this court on 27th February 1997, however, reversed the decision of the Court below and ordered these particulars to be furnished to the appellants within fourteen days of the order and for the case to proceed to trial. Albeit, before another Judge, for reasons other than his mere refusal to accede to the prayer. That order was never complied with. After a period of almost nine months, one Beryl Prah and J.E. Carr describing themselves as the new Chairperson and Secretary respectively of the Association and using the name of the original respondents have come to this Court by way of a motion, supported naturally by an affidavit (in support) praying for an order of enlargement of time within which to comply with our order of 27th February, 1997. The reasons for the application are contained particularly in the paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 10 of the affidavit accompanying the motion. I will reproduce them. They read as follows:

“5” That instead of complying with the order, Mr. Aryettey without the knowledge, approval and consent of the Association and its members ignored it by filing a purported memorandum of settlement in the High Court to the detriment of the members.

“6” — That we are advised by our Solicitors and verily believe the same to be true t

RULING

WOOD G. (MRS)

“6” — That we are advised by our Solicitors and verily believe the same to be true t

F. M. A. ARYETTEY AND ORS v. GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK

Areas of Law