SHAIBU DAOUDA v. GOKALS LTD. & ANOR.

This ruling is in respect of an application by the defendants under the inherent jurisdiction of this court for an order granting them leave to take vacant possession of their warehouse situate at Adabraka from the plaintiff.

In order to appreciate the instant application it would be important from the onset to state the relevant leading to the application. On 17th February, 2010 the plaintiff instituted an action against the defendants claiming the following reliefs:

1. An order for payment of compensation in the sum of GH¢20,000.00 for pains and suffering from injury suffered, medical care and bills and loss of earnings from non-use of his right arm.

2. An order for payment of arrears of salaries due him since June, 2009.

3. An order to restrain the defendants from forcibly evicting him until much compensation is paid to him to look from an alternative accommodation.

4. Cost.

In the accompanying statement of claim the Plaintiff avers that he is in the employment of the defendants as a security man and currently at post at their warehouse at Adabraka. As a result of his employment he lives in the said warehouse with his family and has since been there to date.

The plaintiff avers further that in July 1998 the plaintiff got injured in the course of his employment and was hospitalized at Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital for six (6) months but the defendants refused to visit him nor pay his hospital bill. His right arm deformed as a result of the injuries. When he returned to work eventually he demanded for compensation for the injury but the defendants ignored him. He however continued in the employment of the defendants and receiving salary until in June 2009 when the 2nd defendant told him verbally that his services would no longer be needed and asked him to vacate from the premises with his family.

In their affidavit in support of the instant application the defendants deny that the plaintiff has ever been their employee. They state that the plaintiff was allowed to stay in the warehouse out of compassion but they now need vacant possession of the warehouse for renovation for their business.

The plaintiff opposes the application and state that the defendants did not counterclaim from recovery of possession nor raise it in the directions filed. The plaintiff thus contends that the instant application is a way of passing the back door to ask for a relief which they never asked for.

Arguing the application, Counsel for the defendants refer to sectio