KWADWO DANKWA & ORS v. ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI LTD

JUDGEMENT

AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS.), JSC:-

By a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal allowed in part an appeal filed by the plaintiffs/appellants/respondents against the decision of the High Court entered in favour of the defendants/respondents/appellants. The latter registered their protest against the said decision by filing a Notice of Appeal consisting of these grounds namely:

Grounds of Appeal

1. The learned judges of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they reversed the decision of the High Court (Coram R.C. Azumah J) made on 21 March 2012 setting aside his own earlier order on 28 March 2011 granting the plaintiffs/appellants/respondents (hereinafter the "plaintiffs") leave to issue the writ herein outside the period of limitation.

2. The learned judges of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that the issue raised by the defendant's second motion to set aside the order of Azumah J made on 28 March 2011 granting the plaintiffs leave to issue the writ herein outside the period of limitation had already been determined by His Lordship Mahamadu J in the latter's ruling declining jurisdiction over the defendant's earlier motion to set aside the order made by Azumah J on 28 March 2011 granting the plaintiffs leave to issue the writ herein outside the period of limitation.

3. Other grounds of appeal to be filed upon receipt of a copy of the record of appeal.

Additional Ground of Appeal was subsequently filed. It was formulated thus;

The learned Judges of the Court of Appeal erred when they held that there was no sufficient evidence on which the trial Judge could rely upon to conclude that the plaintiffs’ action was statute-barred.

For the ease of reference, the parties, shall hereafter be referred to simply as plaintiffs and defendants.

A brief background of the events leading to these proceedings would be necessary for a better appreciation of the issues raised herein.

The plaintiffs, numbering about 259 worked variously as casual and temporary employees of the defendant, a mining company. It is their case that even though they worked full time, they were paid as casual and temporary workers. Upon the termination of their respective employments, they were neither paid their end of service benefits nor were they taken through any medical examination as stipulated in their conditions of service. They made several attempts at seeking redress through several fora but none of their efforts yielded fruits.

When all their interventions pro