MARTIN A. ATUAHENE & OTHERS v. GHANA COCOA MARKETING BOARD
February 6, 2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS), JSC (PRESIDING)
- BENIN, JSC
- APPAU, JSC
- MARFUL-SAU, JSC
- KOTEY, JSC
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Corporate Law
- Civil Procedure
February 6, 2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana addressed an appeal brought by Martin Atuahene, acting for 683 former employees of Produce Buying Company Limited (PBC Ltd), seeking severance pay following Cocobod’s 2000 off-loading of shares and the listing of PBC Ltd on the Stock Exchange. Originally hired by Ghana Cocoa Board (Cocobod), the workers were transferred to the Produce Buying Agency, which was later incorporated as PBC Ltd, a company distinct from Cocobod under the Salomon principle and Ghanaian authority. A union agreement (Exhibit 1) set redundancy terms and deemed retained employees’ service continuous. The appellants argued loss of employment and adverse changes to scholarships, medical fees, and remuneration. The Court held severance requires both a break in the legal relationship and, in addition, unemployment or diminution; here, the employer remained PBC Ltd before and after privatization, and no diminution was proved. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Court of Appeal’s reversal of the High Court’s severance award.
J U D G M E N T
MARFUL-SAU, JSC: -
In this appeal we are called upon to determine whether the Plaintiff/ Respondent/ Appellant, who sued on behalf of 683 persons, herein referred to as Appellants, lost their employment with the Produce Buying Company Ltd and for that matter entitled to severance award under the Labour Act.
The Court of Appeal sitting at Kumasi in its judgment under appeal had reversed the decision of the trial High Court, Kumasi which held that Appellants were entitled to severance award. The Appellants are therefore urging this Court to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal on six grounds formulated in their Notice of Appeal as follows:-
“i. The judgment is against the weight of evidence on record.
ii. The Court of Appeal fell into error when they held that relief (i) endorsed on the Writ of Summons was without merit because the Plaintiff/ Respondent/Appellant and his colleagues had not at any time lost their employment with the Defendant/ Appellant/Respondent, Ghana Cocoa Board or Produce Buying Company Limited.
iii. The Court of Appeal erred in faulting the Plaintiffs/Respondents/ Appellants for failing to call evidence to prove the negative that is to say, their denial that they did not receive any entitlement, end of service benefits or redundancy payments apart from their Provident Fund Contributions.
iv. The Court of Appeal erred in pronouncing that the Plaintiff/ Respondent/Appellant and his colleagues’ action was not brought bona fide.
v. The Court of Appeal erred in reversing the judgment of the trial High Court and upholding the appeal of the Defendant/Appellant/Respondent.
vi. The costs awarded against the Plaintiffs/Respondents/Appellants is unjustified in the circumstances.’’
Before proceeding to address the grounds of appeal, we deem it necessary to state the facts of the case albeit briefly. One Martin Atuahene for himself and on behalf of 683 former employees of the Produce Buying Company Ltd took out a Writ of Summons in the High Court, Kumasi claiming three reliefs namely:-
‘’i. a declaration that the defendants are liable to pay to the plaintiff and each of the persons on whose behalf the plaintiff brings this action severance pay for loss of employment.
ii. an order that the defendant shall duly calculate and pay to the plaintiff and each other person for whom the plaintiff has sued the amount due to them by way of severance pay.
iii. interest on the sums so found.’’
The case of Martin Atuahene wh