GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK PENSIONS ASSOCIATION v. GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK NO 2

RULING

ADINYIRA, JA:

The applicant in this case is seeking an order for a stay of execution of an order for a writ of sequestration pending appeal. This order of a writ of sequestration was made ex parte on 14th October 2002 in respect of a judgment of 24th June 2002 entered by the Court of Appeal against the defendant/applicant.

"in terms of relief 1 of the writ of summons that is to say that by reason of the submission to judgment made by the defendant bank before the trial judge on 22nd February 1999, it is hereby declared that the plaintiffs are entitled to be paid their pension rights in accordance with the defendant's Board Of Directors amendment decision of 27 February 1987".

This judgment of 24 June 2002 was made by the Court of Appeal upon the orders of the Supreme Court to enable it to dispose of an appeal pending before it against the High Court ruling of 20 December 2000 on the interpretation of the terms 'current basic salary' and 'automatic adjustment of pension whenever salaries changed', which had appeared in the decisions of the Board Of Directors of Defendant Bank referred to in the judgment after trial. The Court of Appeal gave judgment on 11th July 2002.

It is the contention of Counsel for the applicant that in the said Court of Appeal judgment it was held that the parties herein should negotiate the percentage to be used to determine the pension based on the consolidated salary. But before this condition precedent could be fulfilled the respondent applied for an order for a writ of sequestration. They applied to the High Court to set it aside on the ground that it was premature, but it was refused on 19th November 2002. The applicants filed an appeal against this ruling on 21st November 2002. They then applied for a stay of execution of the writ of sequestration but it was refused on 2nd December 2002, and hence this present application before us. The sum of the submissions by counsel for the respondent was that the order relied upon by the applicant amounts to a revision of the judgment that they have submitted to. The pronouncement of the Court of appeal being relied upon is a mere obiter and a directive, which is not binding.

We have considered these arguments and the affidavits before us and it is clear to us that in the judgment of 11th July 2002 the Court of Appeal was considering 2 original grounds of appeal and an additional ground of appeal filed before it. Ground 2 of the grounds appeal is the one relevant to the applic