2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Defendant/Appellant company appealed a High Court, Sekondi judgment of 7 December 2015 that favored former employees retrenched under a 2006 Staff Rationalization Policy. Management convened a Standing Joint Negotiating Committee (SJNC) with the Railway Workers Union, Railway Enginemen Union of the TUC, and the Association of Senior Officers to agree severance terms, which Respondents viewed as unconscionable compared to their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Severance was paid in three installments between 2006 and 2010, and the company later sought to recover bungalows occupied by the retirees. On appeal, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the redundancy was governed by the existing CBA, not fresh SJNC negotiations. While affirming recovery of possession with a three‑month vacation order, the court upheld the trial judge’s refusal to award mesne profits, noting the peculiar circumstances including delayed payments and extended rent‑free occupation. The appeal was dismissed; the High Court’s judgment affirmed.
GEORGINA MENSAH-DATSA (MRS.), J.A.
This is an appeal by the Defendant/Appellant (hereinafter referred to as Appellant) against the judgment of the High Court, Sekondi dated 7th December, 2015 in favour of the Plaintiffs /Respondents (hereinafter referred to as Respondents)
The grounds of appeal are as follows:
i. The judgment is against the weight of evidence.
ii. The learned trial Judge erred by finding that the defendant was entitled to recover possession of its buildings yet he refused to grant the defendant mesne profit.
iii. Other grounds of appeal will be filed upon receipt of the record of appeal.
The Plaintiffs/Respondents instituted this action on 25/8/2010 against the Defendant /Appellant. The Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim was first amended on 29/5/2012, then on 12/12/2014 and finally amended on 5/5/2015 for the following reliefs:
1(a) A declaration that the Plaintiffs were to be retrenched on the basis of their Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Defendant and a further order setting aside the decision of the Standing Joint Negotiating Committee on the retrenchment of the Plaintiffs from the Defendant company as unconscionable and unlawful.
1(b) A order directing the Defendant to pay the Plaintiffs their retirement entitlements in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement and with interest at the current bank rate from the date of their retirement.
The Defendant/Appellant counter-claimed as follows:
(a) Recovery of Possession of Bungalows/Quarters which are occupied by the Plaintiffs.
(b) Mesne Profits.
The brief facts of this case are that Respondents were employees of the Appellant company. In July, 2006, the Appellant decided to size down its workforce to match with the wage bill and make operation economical, so it decided to retire its staff aged between 56-60 years before their superannuation. This policy was termed Staff Rationalization Policy. The management of the Appellant set up a Standing Joint Negotiating Committee (SJNC) comprising the management of the Appellant, the Railway Workers Union, the Railway Enginemen Union of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and the Association of Senior Officers to negotiate and agree on terms and conditions for the retirement emolument and fringe benefits which the affected staff by the exercise would be entitled to. The SJNC came out with terms which the Respondents considered unfair and unconscionable. The Appellants were retired by the 1st October 2006 but their e