MARTIN A. ATUAHENE 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, per Marful-Sau JSC, dismissed the appeal by Martin Atuahene and 683 former employees of Produce Buying Company Limited (PBC Ltd) seeking severance pay after PBC’s 2000 privatisation. The appellants were initially engaged by Ghana Cocoa Board (Cocobod), moved to its Produce Buying Agency (PBA), and then, upon incorporation, became employees of PBC Ltd, which later was wholly privatised. The Court held that under section 34 of the pre-2003 labour regime, severance pay requires both a severance of the worker–employer legal relationship and unemployment or diminution in terms. Because PBC remained the employing entity before and after ownership changed, and the privatisation agreement guaranteed continuous service for retained workers, there was no severance. Claims of diminished conditions—scholarships, clinic fees, and remuneration—were unproven or immaterial. Citing Salomon v Salomon and Morkor v Kuma on corporate personality, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s reversal and dismissed the appeal.
RULING
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 who testifi