2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This appeal concerned retired employees of the Hydrological Services Department (HSD) under the Ministry of Water Resources, Works and Housing, who began their service with the Hydro Division of the Architectural and Engineering Services Corporation (AESC) and later AESL. HSD issued retirement letters (Exhibit 3 series) specifying awards based on practice analogous to AESL, and the Ministry of Finance had previously paid similar awards to other HSD retirees (Exhibit F series). The High Court awarded the Respondents their retirement benefits with interest and costs; Appellants argued Respondents were civil servants subject only to SSNIT contributions, the AESL CBA was inapplicable, prior payments were mistaken, and a government policy had abolished retirement awards. The Court of Appeal, per Koomson JA, treated the appeal as a rehearing, held that although Respondents were civil servants, the AESL CBA did not bind HSD or Government; nonetheless established practice and official letters created legitimate expectation and estoppel. Appellants failed the evidentiary burden to prove any abolishing policy. Ackah-Yensu JA concurred, emphasizing statutory and constitutional protection of accrued rights; Bartels-Kodwo JA agreed. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court judgment.
KOOMSON, JA
Defendants/Appellants (‘Appellants’) by a Notice of Appeal filed on the 9th of March, 2018 are praying this Appellate Court to set aside the Judgment of the High Court dated 17th January, 2018, awarding Plaintiffs/Respondents their retirement benefits plus interest from the date the amounts were due until the date of final payment at commercial interest rate and cost of Ghc7,000.
Appellants file eight (8) grounds of appeal as follows:
1. The judgment is against the weight of evidence advanced at the trial.
2. The learned trial judge erred when she awarded ‘the Plaintiffs retirement benefits contained in Exhibit 3 series plus interest from date the amounts were due until date of final payment at commercial interest rate at simple interest’.
3. The learned trial judge erred in awarding
4. The learned trial judge erred when she did not consider the issue of whether or not the Plaintiffs have already benefitted from a 12.5% employer’s contribution to the Social Security and National Insurance Trust Pension Scheme
5. The learned trial judge erred in not finding that the Plaintiffs are Civil Servants even though she found on the evidence and held at page 5 of her judgment that the Plaintiffs are employees of the 1st Defendant Ministry.
6. The learned judge erred in finding that the director of the 1st Defendant Department had authority to write letters (Exhibit 3 series) promising to pay retirement benefits to the Plaintiffs.
7. The learned judge erred in finding that the Plaintiffs are entitled to the payment of retirement benefits which were paid by government by mistake and has no legal basis simply because others had been paid such retirement benefits in the past.
8. The learned judge erred in finding that the Defendants were estopped from assuming a different position even though Plaintiff’s did not prove any detriment suffered.
9. Additional grounds of appeal will be filed/upon receipt of the record of proceedings.
Appellants did not however file any additional grounds of appeal.
The facts of the case are that, Respondents were initially in the employment of the Hydro Division of Architectural and Engineering Services Corporation (AESC). Sometime in 1995 and by operation of law, AESC metamorphosed into Architectural and Engineering Services Limited (AESL). The Hydro Division, however, became the responsibility of the 2nd Appellant, i.e., Ministry of Water Resources Works and Housing instead of AESL. By this, the Hydro Divi