December 7, 2022
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Amegatcher JSC, dismissed an appeal by a former Assistant Agricultural Development Officer challenging his employer’s treatment and seeking constitutional redress and extensive monetary differentials. The appellant was transferred to Tamale in 1998 and, following performance-related correspondence, was demoted on 3 December 2001 by a letter from the respondent’s COO, after which his salary was reduced from January 2002 until his redundancy in July 2011. He previously obtained a favourable order from the National Labour Commission in 2009, but the respondent’s appeal succeeded, with the Court of Appeal holding the cause accrued in 2001 and the NLC lacked jurisdiction. In 2017 the High Court dismissed his subsequent human rights suit as statute-barred and found no constitutional breach; in 2020 the Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed. The Supreme Court agreed the dispute is contractual, not constitutional, and held the claims are time-barred under NRCD 54, with NLC proceedings not tolling limitation, severability inapplicable, and the appeal failing entirely.
AMEGATCHER JSC:-
INTRODUCTION
This is an appeal emanating from the dismissal by the Court of Appeal of a writ filed by the plaintiff/appellant/appellant (hereafter called the appellant) against his former employer the defendant/ respondent/ respondent (hereafter called the respondent). The writ was filed at the Human Rights Division of the High Court for the violations of the 1992 Constitution and for payment of remuneration differentials. On the 8th November 2017, the High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ and held that not only was the claim statute barred but that there had been no violation of the appellant’s constitutional rights. The appellant, dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, appealed to the Court of Appeal. By a unanimous judgment dated 11th June 2020, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the High Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the judgment, and taking advantage of his constitutionally enshrined right to have a second bite at the cherry, the appellant has filed this appeal before us for a final determination on the matter.
FACTS
The appellant’s claim is that he was employed as an Assistant Agricultural Development Officer of the respondent from 1985 till his redundancy in 2011. By a letter dated 6th January 1998, he was transferred to the Tamale Branch of the respondent company. According to the appellant, the letter did not specify his role in that branch. Sometime on 22nd December 2000, the Executive Head of Retail Banking after receiving a purported audit report wrote a final warning letter to the appellant blaming him for inadequate management controls and unacceptable operational risks. The appellant replied to the said letter stating that he was neither the branch Accountant nor part of management. Furthermore, on 5th September 2001, the Head of Retail Performance, North wrote to the appellant blaming him for inefficiencies in the Tamale Branch which the appellant denied. Subsequently, on 3rd December 2001, the Chief Operating Officer (COO) of the respondent company wrote a letter to the appellant titled ‘gross misconduct’ where he alleged that the appellant had failed to meet the requirements of his role as Operations Officer, a position which appellant claims he never held.
The appellant pleaded that even though this letter indicated that he was being demoted, the effect was not to change his salary and bonus payments but to take away his signing powers. The appellant also contended that the role of