GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION v. GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK NO 4
2004
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- Omari-Sasu, J.A. [Presiding]
- Anim, J.A.
- Kusi-Appouh, (Mrs.) J
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Employment Law
2004
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Omari-Sasu, J.A. delivered reasons for an earlier unanimous Ghana Court of Appeal order striking out the Notice of Appeal filed by the Respondents Bank on December 17, 2003, which followed a review ruling of November 27, 2003. The bank’s first ground challenged the Court’s treatment of an alleged internal mechanism governing employee retirement, but the Applicants’ supplementary affidavit and the bank’s pleadings showed no such mechanism had been pleaded in the High Court. Applying Order 19 Rule 4 and citing Gwira v. State Insurance Corporation, the Court found the internal mechanism argument an afterthought and precluded after the bank submitted to judgment. The second ground claimed that a nine‑month delay required special leave for review, but under Rule 34 of C.I. 19 only exceptional circumstances and the interests of justice are required, with no time bar. The Court held the grounds unmeritorious, struck out the notice, and awarded ¢30 million costs.
REASONS FOR RULING
OMARI-SASU, J.A.
On February 27, 2004 the application by the Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respon- dents-Applicants for an order to strike out and dismiss the notice of Appeal filed by the Defendants-Appellants-Appellants-Respondents on December 17th 2003 was unanimously granted as prayed but the reasons for the ruling were deferred till today, They are now given hereunder.
The said Notice of Appeal of the Respondents Bank was filed pursuant to a Ruling on review by this court dated November 27, 2003
Two grounds of appeal were filed by the Respondents. These are:—
(3A)" The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred when they held that the
" first time "internal mechanism " was raised.
" Was in ground (b) of the grounds of appeal filed on behalf of the bank on 29th
" December, 2000, against the decision of the High Court, Accra dated 20th
" December, 2000 in the face of documentary evidence to the contrary in the appeal record"
Our comment on this ground is that a through search through all the processes filed by the litigants herein does not support the contention of the Respondents Bank. The Applicants filed a supplementary affidavit on January 19, 2004 in which they exhibited the statement of claim, statement of Defence and summons for Directions filed in the court below and nowhere in the Defence of the Respondents Bank did they plead that the Bank had any "Internal mechanisms" which regulated conditions governing the retirement of their employees.
ORDER 19 RULE 4 OF THE HIGH COURT [CIVIL PROCEDURE] THURES 1954 [LN.140A] provides [inter alia]
"Every pleading shall contain, and contain only a statement in a summary form of the "maternal facts (emphasis is ours) on which the party pleading relies for his claim or " defence as the case me be ... "
An examination of the statement of Defence of the Respondents Bank (as exhibited) shows that nowhere in their pleadings did they plead the "internal mechanism" of the Bank as alleged.
The Respondents Bank submitted to judgment in respect of the Applicants Relief 1 on February 27, 1999 before the High Court and the said judgment was actually entered by the Court of Appeal on June, 24, 2002. It is our considered view therefore that in-as much-as the Respondent-Bank failed to plead the said "internal mechanism" in their pleadings, they did not only breach Order 19 Rule 4 (supra) but they also did not qualify to use the said "internal mechanism" as part of their case to merit consi