2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiffs, former employees of the Defendant, claimed various reliefs including additional redundancy payments and damages for wrongful termination. The court found that the End of Service Benefit Scheme (ESB) was never operationalized, and the Plaintiffs could not claim benefits under it. However, the 12th Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated under the guise of early retirement and was awarded two years worth of salary as damages. The case highlights principles of employment termination and redundancy, burden of proof in civil matters, and the appropriate remedy for wrongful termination.
The Plaintiffs sued their former employer, the Defendant herein for the following reliefs:
“i. A declaration that the Defendant is required to pay 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th Plaintiffs for further sum of three (3) months’ salary for year of employment with Defendant as redundancy benefits.
ii. A declaration that Defendant purported letter of redundancy to 12th Plaintiff dated the 12th day of October, 2007 is null and void. Or in the alternate
iii. A declaration that Defendant is required to pay 12th Plaintiff the two (2) months’ salary for each year of employment with Defendant.
iv. An order that the payment of the three (3) months’ salary for each of year of employment by 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th 10th and 11th Plaintiff with Defendant using the prevailing salaries at the time of judgment.
v. General damages for wrongfully declaring 12th Plaintiff redundant since October, 2007. Or in the alternate
vi. An order for the payment of two (2) months’ salary for each of employment of 12th Plaintiff with Defendant using the prevailing salary at the time of judgment.
vii. Interest on the said benefits from the 1st day of November, 2013 till the date of final payment at the bank rate.
viii. Cost including Counsel’s fees”. The brief undisputed facts of the case were that, the Plaintiffs were former employees of the Defendant.
The Defendant declared all the Plaintiffs redundant except the 12th Plaintiff whose letter of exit from the Defendant was, captioned as “Early Retirement”. The 1st – 11th Plaintiffs are in court disputing the money paid to them as redundant package.
The 12th Plaintiff on the other hand is challenging the letter discharging him from the Defendant’s employment as illegal and unlawful.
At the close of pleadings, eight (8) issues were set down to determine the matters in which the parties were not ad idem.
The eight (8) issues set down by the Court are as follows:
“1. Whether or not the End of Service Benefit Scheme (ESB Scheme) was approved by Defendant’s Board.
2. Whether or not 1st to 11th Plaintiffs were entitled to be paid a redundancy package of two (2) months basic pay for each completed year of service as contained in their conditions of employment and a further three (3) months for each year of employment as stipulated by the ESB Scheme.
3. Whether or not Defendant paid some of its ex-employees (3)three months basic salary for each year of their employment together with oth