Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs herein issued a writ on 7th May 2020 claiming the following reliefs
against the defendant;
1. An order directed against the defendant to pay plaintiffs cash in lieu of all their
outstanding leave entitlements which defendants denied them for lack of
skilled personnel prior to their retirements.
2. Interest on the said amount from 2008 till date of final payment.
3. Damages for breach of contract.
4. Costs including solicitor’s fees.
Per the accompanying statement of claim, the plaintiffs were employees of the
defendant's company and are all currently on retirement, with the exception of the 3rd
defendant, whose interest is being claimed by the administrators of his estate as he is
now deceased. On the other hand, the defendant is a company in charge of producing
electricity for Ghanaians for various purposes. According to the plaintiffs, prior to
their retirement, they had annual leave days to their credit which the defendant
company could not grant them due to the shortage of skilled men at the time. They
claim that the defendant deferred their accumulated leave days, which they pleaded
with the defendant to convert into cash. The defendant has, however, told them that
since they did not take their leave as required, they were not entitled to the cash in
lieu thereof. They believe that the position taken by the defendant is wholly unjust
and inequitable.
It is their further case that the leave administration of the defendant's employees was
entirely the preserve of the defendant who controlled and took decisions affecting the
leave of its workers. They claim that they have pursued the defendant since 2008 for
their cash in lieu of their outstanding leave days and have even reported the matter to
the Human Rights Office in Cape Coast but to no avail. They further state that after
several discussions at the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice,
they only paid the entitlement of one Mr Acquah, leaving the others with the excuse
that the floodgates would be opened.
It is also their case that since their rights to cash in lieu of their outstanding leave days
have materialised and that the defendant deferred and denied them their leave
entitlements for lack of skilled staff at the time, then the defendant ought to pay them.
They also stated that it would be unjust to allow the defendant to approbate and
reprobate when the same defendant denied and deferred their leave so they could
work for th