KENNETH GYAN KESSE & 87 OTHERS vs THE NATIONAL SECURITY COORDINATOR & ANOR
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP DENNIS ADJEI, J. A, SITTING AS AN ADDITIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGE
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Contract Law
- Administrative Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves former employees of the National Security Secretariat challenging the termination of their appointments. The court held that despite the absence of explicit termination provisions in their employment conditions, the employer retained common law rights to terminate employment with reasonable notice. The court found the terminations lawful, as the employer provided three months' salary in lieu of notice, which exceeded the one-month notice required for employee resignations. The plaintiffs failed to prove entitlement to additional benefits, and their claim was dismissed. The case affirms principles of employment law regarding termination rights and the mutual nature of employment contracts.
The plaintiffs according to their Amended Writ of Summons are claiming against the Defendants for the following reliefs:
“1. A declaration that each of the plaintiffs be paid just earned benefits upon termination of appointment as is consistent within the conditions governing their employment as staff of the National Security Secretariat. .
2. An order that the Defendants should pay the just earned benefits as staff of National Security Council Secretariat upon their having been terminated as staff thereof”. The brief facts of the case were that the plaintiffs were employed by the 1st Defendant on 13th August, 2001. They were issued with temporary appointment letters dated 13th August, 2001. Their appointments were confirmed by letters dated 30th December, 2002. The terms and conditions of the plaintiffs were regulated by the Security and Intelligence Agencies Law of 1996, Act 526, other General and Departmental Instructions and Administrative Directives.
The employer-employee relationship between the plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant was also governed by the Rules and Conditions of Service which was tendered in evidence as exhibit ‘F’. Some of the plaintiffs’ appointments were terminated by the 1st Defendant on 20th July, 2009 and were paid three (3) month’s salary in lieu of notice.
The others too had their appointments terminated on different dates but had the same conditions as the earlier one’s. The plaintiffs, dissatisfied with the termination of their appointments instituted this action against the defendants claiming inter alia, for just earned benefits upon termination.
The issues set down at the application for directions were three including the omnibus issues.
The issues were as follows:
“(i) Whether the plaintiffs were removed because of perception that they were political appointees of the previous political administration.
(ii) Whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to end of service benefits.
iii) Any other issue arising out of the pleadings”. I must state that the reliefs being sought by the parties were not raised as issues to be considered at the application for directions stage.
I will however discuss the issue as to whether or not the plaintiffs are to be paid just earned benefits upon termination of their appointments under the omnibus issue.
Two of the plaintiffs’ namely Christopher Quartei Quartey and Patrick Yaw Afriyie testified on their own behalf and on behalf of the other plaintiffs.
The evidence of the plaintif