SAGE GHANA LTD. v. J.K. NYARKO _ 21 ORS
2004
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- S. T. Farkye, J.A Presiding
- J.B. Akamba, Justice of Appeal
- Jones Dotse, Justice of Appeal
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
2004
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Writing for the Court of Appeal, J.B. Akamba, J.A., addresses an appeal from a High Court, Tema judgment by Mrs. I.M. Heward-Mills, J., involving twenty-two casual labourers employed by a defendant company under a trade union-negotiated collective agreement governed by the Industrial Relations Act. The plaintiffs alleged failure to convert them to permanent status and pay proper entitlements upon termination on 29 February 2000. Akamba finds only eight plaintiffs had ten or more years’ service and, under Article 4, they were deemed confirmed despite no formal letters. He dismisses the preliminary objection alleging late filing due to defective service, holds limitation must be pleaded, recalibrates damages by tenure with interest, and sets aside uniform costs, awarding costs to the defendant. S.T. Farkye, J.A. and Jones Dotse, J.A. concur.
JUDGMENT.
J.B. AKAMBA, J.A
On 15th November 2002, Mrs. I.M. Heward-Mills, J. sitting at the High Court Tema, entered judgment against the defendant/appellant (hereinafter referred as the defendant) upon a writ of summons laid before her. The defendant, who is dissatisfied with the judgment, filed the present appeal in this court.
The facts of this case as gleaned from the record of proceedings are that the defendant company employed the twenty-two plaintiffs/respondents (hereinafter simply referred as the plaintiffs) as non-permanent (casual) labourers on various dates before their appointments were terminated on 29th February 2000. The plaintiffs' employment was covered by collective agreement, which spelt out their conditions of service. The collective agreement, exhibit A, is governed by the Industrial Relations Act 1965, Act 229, since it was negotiated on their behalf by the Trade Union. It is the case of the plaintiffs that upon the termination of their employment, the defendant failed to pay them duly as provided under the agreement resulting in loss to each plaintiff. The plaintiffs also contend that prior to tile termination of their respective employments, tile defendant had failed to convert their casual status to permanent, in accordance with the collective agreement despite the fact that they had qualified for such conversion. This was also done to their detriment.
The defendant on the other hand, admits that even though there were no formal notifications to the plaintiffs either individually or collectively, defendants appropriate had treated the plaintiffs as permanent employees. They accordingly paid the plaintiffs appropriate benefits except for those benefits that required individual formal applications. In these latter instances those who applied were granted the facility.
The plaintiffs issued their writ of summons on 28th April 2000 claiming against the defendant the following:
"(1) Damages for breach of contract in failing to engage PLAINTIFFS in the permanent establishment of DEFENDANT company according to their employment contract resulting in monetary loss to PLAINTIFFS.
(2) Payment of differences between payment made upon PLAINTIFFS redundancy and PLAINTIFFS’ rightful entitlements as would be entitled to a permanent employee.
(3) Special damages.
The trial judge after hearing evidence from both parties entered judgment for the plaintiffs granting all the reliefs stated supra. The defendant who is aggrieved by the decision