INSP/SHITU WABI & 76 OTHERS v INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ANOTHER

MAJORITY OPINION

PWAMANG JSC:-

My Lords, critical to discharging our obligation to resolve the dispute between the parties to this appeal in accordance with law is the need to determine the nature of the case the plaintiffs/respondents/appellants (the

plaintiffs) filed in the High Court. The Court of Appeal in their judgment dated 22nd October, 2020 held that the plaintiffs’ action was statute barred as their claims were based on simple contracts of employment but the plaintiffs have refuted that vehemently before us.

The plaintiffs proffer two different causes of action as the basis for suing. In one breath, they contend that they sought by their suit to enforce judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of C.B. Bawuah & Ors v Attorney-General, dated 26th July, 1994 given against the Government of Ghana. (That case is reported as; Yovuyibor and Anor v Attorney-General [1993-94] 2 GLR 343). In that case, the Supreme Court declared that the Police Administration acted in violation of the Constitution, 1992 by compulsorily retiring three police officers from the service before they attained the ages of sixty years as provided by article 199(1) of the Constitution. The plaintiffs herein were also in the police service and were similarly compulsorily retired in 1993-94 at ages 55 for the men among them and 50 for the women. They therefore

contend that the Supreme Court judgment equally applied to them.

In another breadth, the plaintiffs claim that since their premature retirement breached the Constitution, their suit in the High Court ought to be understood as an action to remedy a breach of the Constitution which the Supreme Court had already held had been contravened by the Police

Administration. Basing on the two positions stated above, the plaintiffs submit before us that the provision of the Limitations Act, 1972 (NRCD 54)

relating to actions in simple contract upon which the Court of Appeal decided the case against them is not applicable in this case. From the stand of the action being for the enforcement of the 1994 judgment, it is submitted that the relevant limitation period under NRCD 54 is twelve years which applies to actions brought upon a judgment. It has alternatively been argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, that since their action was to vindicate the Constitution, then so long as their salaries for the period before they turned sixty years remained unpaid, the Government of Ghana was in continuing breach of the Constitution so their c