2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal of Ghana, per I. O. Tanko Amadu J.A., considered an appeal from the Industrial Division of the High Court in Accra where, at judgment, the trial judge raised jurisdiction sua motu and declined to determine a workplace injury claim brought under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1987 (PNDCL 187). The claimant alleged personal injuries from an accident occurring in the course of employment on or about 30 November 2011 and sought general damages and costs. Unusually, the employer’s counsel supported the appeal and conceded error. The appellate court anchored its analysis in constitutional supremacy, citing Tuffuor v Attorney-General and Bamford Addo JSC’s opinion in Sam (No. 2) v Attorney-General to emphasize that subordinate legislation cannot limit the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction. It found the High Court’s mechanical statutory reading of PNDCL 187 erroneous and allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment. Although urged to employ its rehearing powers under Rule 8(1) and Rule 32 of C.I. 19 to decide the merits, the Court declined, underscoring the High Court’s fact-finding role and preserving first appellate rights by remitting the case to a differently constituted High Court.
TANKO AMADU J.A
(1) The written submission of the Defendant/Respondent in this appeal is unique though not entirely novel. It is unique because counsel for the Respondent not only supported the Appellant’s written submission, but proferred arguments in concession by arguing that the Learned Trial Judge indeed erred in her judgment and therefore the same to be set aside as sought by the Appellant. This approach by the Respondent’s counsel when they could have opted not to file any response, demonstrates academic honesty and commendable professional conduct and we wish to place same on record as such.
(2) The background facts giving rise to this appeal are not in dispute at all. By writ issued from the Industrial Division of the High Court Accra, the Plaintiff/Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellant”) sought reliefs against the Defendant/ Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “Respondent”) as follows:-
“(a) ………………General damages in respect of liability or
breach of statutory duty on the part of the Defendant under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1987 (PNDCL 187) for personal injuries sustained by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment of the Plaintiff or about the 30th November, 2011.
b. Legal costs.
(3) At the close of pleadings, the Trial Court adopted the following issues for determination of the dispute between the parties.
“(a) Whether or not the Defendant is liable for damages in
respect of liability or breach of statutory duty under
the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1987 (PNDCL.197)
for personal injuries arising out of and in the course of
the employment of the Plaintiff on or about the 30th
November 2011.
b. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs he
claims.
c. Any other issues arising from the pleadings”.
(4) Significantly, at the directions stage, neither the parties nor the Trial Court suo motu raised any issue with respect to the statutory jurisdiction of the Trial Court though admittedly, being a foundation or threshold issue, it could be raised at any stage of the proceedings even on appeal.
(5) In the instant case, without inviting the parties to address her on the Trial Court’s jurisdictional competence even at the end of the trial, the Trial Judge in delivering hereself raised the issue of the Court’s statutory jurisdiction suo motu and held inter alia as follows:-
“A combined reading of Section 19, 21, and 38 on the interpretation of ‘court’ shows that the proper forum for