JOSEPH KOFI ARNUMU & ANOTHER v. ELECTRICITY COMPANY OF GHANA

KUSI-APPIAH

This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court, Accra dated 5 July, 2004, where the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs claims. On 7 March, 2001, the plaintiffs, numbering 50, who were ex-employees of the defendant company issued a writ of summons (suit No. C 235/2001) against thedefendant, Electricity Company of Ghana, claiming the following reliefs: -

“(1) Severance award being entitlements due and owing to plaintiffs by virtue of their Collective Agreement with the defendants.

(2) General damages for breach of contract.

(3) Interest on the severance awards. ”On two separate occasions in 1989 and 1991, the defendant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the defendant), a Limited Liability Company registered under the laws of Ghana to sell and distribute electricity throughout Ghana, embarked on a restructure or staff reduction exercise which resulted in over 900 staff including the plaintiffs /appellants (hereinafter called the plaintiffs) being laid off or losing their jobs.

According to the plaintiffs when their employers (defendant-company) decided todispense with their services, they were paid various sums of money were not givenseverance award as required under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), tendered in evidence as Exhibit “B”. They contended that the terms and conditions of their employment with the defendant-company were governed by Exhibit “B” which was concluded between the defendant-company and Public Utility Workers Union (PUWU) of which the plaintiffs were members.

They further say that the non-compliance with the provisions of Exhibit “B” was in breach of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) as well as the Labour Decree, 1967 (as amended) both of which made the payment of severance award obligatory on the defendant.

In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs also averred that their names hadbeen wrongly detected from the payroll as they had not been paid their End of ServiceBenefits (ESB). They were thus asking for salaries up to and including the date of final payment.

They also testified that wrong number of years served had been credited to some of them and thus those affected had been paid less than they were entitled to.

The plaintiffs were therefore asking for the balance of their End of Service Benefits.

Various amendments to the claim by the plaintiffs pegged the amount being demanded to c1, 746.

The defendant on the other hand denied the claim(s) of the plaintiffs.

Theycontended tha