SYLVANUS DOE & ors vs G.S. INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPERS (GH)

INTRODUCTION

On the 14th of June, 2017, the plaintiffs issued out a writ of summons and accompanying statement of claim seeking the following reliefs against the defendant: -1) An order on the defendant to pay the plaintiffs the differences in their remuneration as temporary workers for the period they should have been deemed to be treated and paid as permanent workers.

2)Order on the defendant to pay the plaintiffs appropriately calculated overtime pay due the plaintiffs.

3)Interest on the total sum payable.

4)Cost. The defendant was duly served with the writ of summons and statement of claim but it failed to enter an appearance.

After the time for filing a defence had elapsed, the court, then differently constituted, heard the plaintiffs’ evidence and delivered judgment in their favour.

Afterwards the defendant was served with the entry of judgment and on receipt of which it filed a motion to set aside the default judgment and for leave to file a late appearance and a statement of defence.

This application was granted by the court subject to cost. The defendant thereafter entered appearance and filed its defence on the 19th of November, 2018. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a reply to the defendant’s defence.

At the close of pleadings the following issues were set down by the court for determination: (1) Whether or not the plaintiffs are permanent employees of the defendant? (2) Whether or not plaintiffs have been paid their just remuneration and allowances as employees? (3) Whether or not the defendant paid the plaintiffs the appropriate allowances? (4) Whether or not the plaintiffs have received their appropriate overtime? (5) Any other issues raised by the pleadings.

CASE OF PLAINTIFFS The case of the plaintiffs who are about seventy (70) in all is that they were individually employed by the defendant at different times as temporary workers.

They say the defendant retained them for long periods as temporary workers without converting them to permanent status as required by the law and therefore the defendant denied them their true wages because they were not treated by the defendant as permanent employees.

Their case further is that they were denied overtimebenefits for the extra hours of work they had done forthe defendant and that all attempts by them to have thedefendant comply with the law and remunerate themappropriately had been ignored by the defendant.

Theywere thus of the view that it is only the interventionof this court that w