KWADWO DANKWA & ORS v. ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI LTD
February 14, 2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS.) JSC (PRESIDING)
- BENIN JSC
- APPAU JSC
- MARFUL-SAU JSC
- KOTEY JSC
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Employment Law
- Evidence Law
February 14, 2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Akoto-Bamfo JSC, allowed the mining company’s appeal against the Court of Appeal’s partial reversal of the High Court’s dismissal of claims by 259 former workers. The plaintiffs had obtained ex parte leave from Azumah J to issue a writ outside the six-year limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1972 (NRCD 54), and sued for wrongful termination and end-of-service benefits. After Mahamadu J declined jurisdiction over an application to set aside the leave, the defendants re-applied to Azumah J, who set aside his earlier leave and dismissed the suit as a nullity. The Supreme Court held that Mahamadu J’s jurisdictional dismissal did not operate as res judicata, that the High Court had inherent jurisdiction to vacate void orders, and that, given the plaintiffs’ admissions and pleadings, the claim was clearly time-barred, permitting summary dismissal under Order 11 rule 18 without a pleaded defence. The appeal was allowed in full.
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