Employment - Redundancy -
Section 65 of the Labour
Act, 2003 (Act 651) - Whether
the Defendant discriminated
against the Plaintiff by
giving a more enhanced exit
package to its employees who
were below her age group -
Whether Plaintiff’s refusal
and neglect to report for
duty after the withdrawal of
the exit package constituted
a vacation of post under the
terms and conditions of her
employment.
HEADNOTES
The 1st Defendant
decided to embark on a
redundancy exercise in the
year 2009. The Plaintiff who
was then employed by the 1st Defendant
Company opted for the
voluntary redundancy. This
request was however rejected
by the 1st Defendant.
In December of 2012, the 1st Defendant
decided to proceed with the
second phase of the
redundancy exercise, this
time compulsorily. The
Plaintiff this time round,
was affected by the
compulsory redundancy
exercise and she was laid
off and paid three months
salary inclusive of the
salary she would have earned
prior to her compulsory
retirement period. In
the interim, the Plaintiff
filled out a handing over
certificate and
disengagement form which she
returned to her employer.
She was subsequently paid
her redundancy package which
included a three month
contract of employment with
the second Defendant,
ostensibly to ease the
effects of the redundancy. The
Plaintiff however expressed
dissatisfaction with the
package for a number of
reasons. She therefore
caused her attorneys to
write to the 1st Defendant,
her employer, expressing her
dissatisfaction with the
package. This action by the
Plaintiff caused the 1st Defendant
to withdraw the whole
redundancy package,
including the three month
contract of employment with
the second Defendant, and
requested the Plaintiff to
return to work for the rest
of the twenty-two months
prior to her compulsory
retirement. It also asked
the Plaintiff to return the
money which was paid to her
as her exit package. The
Plaintiff however refused to
return to work or refund the
monies paid into her bank
account as her exit package
and rather sued for the
following reliefs. A
declaration that the exit
package the 1st Defendant
offered was unilaterally and
arbitrarily determined and
sinned against Section 65 of
the Labour Act, 2003 (Act
651) -
HELD :-
In the premises, the appeal
filed by the Plaintiff
against the Court of Appeal
judgment of 26/3/2015 fails
save that the ground of
appeal against the grant of
the 1st
Defendants counterclaim
succeeds.
STATUTES REFERRED TO IN
JUDGMENT
Supreme Court Rules 1996, C.
I. 16
Labour
Act, 2003 (Act 651)
Legal Profession Act, 1960,
Act 32,
CASES REFERRED TO IN
JUDGMENT
Erisaac Press v. Emmanuel
Sallah [2013] 59 GMJ 142.
Baiden v Graphic Corporation
[2003-05] 2 GLR 522.
Ashun v. Accra Brewery
Limited (2009) SCGLR 81.
Nunoofio v Farmers Services
Co. Ltd [2007-2008] SCGLR
926
Dam v Addo
(J K) & Brothers [1962] 2
GLR 200, SC
Ashun v Accra Brewery
Limited, [2009] SCGLR 81
Nartey-Tokoli v Volta
Aluminium Co. Limited
[1987-88] 2 GLR 532
Hemans v GNTC [1978] GLR 4,
G.C.M.B v Agbettoh [1984-86]
1 GLR 122
BOOKS REFERRED TO IN
JUDGMENT
DELIVERING THE LEADING
JUDGMENT
GBADEGBE JSC:-
COUNSEL
SIKA ABLA ADDO FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.BAFFOUR
AKOTO WITH HIM JOSEPH
HACKSON AND WILSON JONES FOR
THE DEFENDANTS/ RESPONDENTS/
RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
DOTSE JSC:-
Chapter 15, verse 8-9 of the
Gospel according to St. Luke in
the Holy Bible reads as
follows:-
“Or suppose a woman has ten
silver coins and loses one won’t
she light a lamp and sweep the
entire house and search
carefully until she finds it?
And when she finds it, she will
call in her friends and
neighbours and say
“Rejoice with me because I have
found my lost coin.” Life
Application Study Bible – page
1719
This is a judgment in respect of
an appeal lodged by the
Plaintiff/Appellant /Appellant,
hereafter Plaintiff, against the
judgment of the Court of Appeal
dated 26th March 2015
which was in favour of the
Defendants/Respondents
/Respondents, hereafter 1st
and 2nd Defendants.
FACTS
The facts in this case admit of
no controversy whatsoever. They
are as follows:-
The 1st Defendant
decided to embark on a
redundancy exercise in the year
2009. The Plaintiff who was then
employed by the 1st
Defendant Company opted for the
voluntary redundancy. This
request was however rejected by
the 1st Defendant. In
December of 2012, the 1st
Defendant decided to proceed
with the second phase of the
redundancy exercise, this time
compulsorily.
The Plaintiff this time round,
was affected by the compulsory
redundancy exercise and she was
laid off and paid three months
salary inclusive of the salary
she would have earned prior to
her compulsory retirement
period.
In the interim, the Plaintiff
filled out a handing over
certificate and disengagement
form which she returned to her
employer. She was subsequently
paid her redundancy package
which included a three month
contract of employment with the
second Defendant, ostensibly to
ease the effects of the
redundancy.
The Plaintiff however expressed
dissatisfaction with the package
for a number of reasons. She
therefore caused her attorneys
to write to the 1st
Defendant, her employer,
expressing her dissatisfaction
with the package. This action by
the Plaintiff caused the 1st
Defendant to withdraw the whole
redundancy package, including
the three month contract of
employment with the second
Defendant, and requested the
Plaintiff to return to work for
the rest of the twenty-two
months prior to her compulsory
retirement. It also asked the
Plaintiff to return the money
which was paid to her as her
exit package.
The Plaintiff however refused to
return to work or refund the
monies paid into her bank
account as her exit package and
rather sued for the following
reliefs.
“A declaration that the exit
package the 1st
Defendant offered was
unilaterally and arbitrarily
determined and sinned against
Section 65 of the Labour Act,
2003 (Act 651).
i.
A declaration that the conduct
of the 1st Defendant
violated the economic rights of
the Plaintiff.
ii.
A declaration that the 1st
Defendant discriminated against
the Plaintiff by giving a more
enhanced exit package of 20%
annual basic salary of each year
worked to its employees who were
below her age group.
iii.
A declaration that the
termination of the employment
contract by the 2nd
Defendant was unlawful.
iv.
An order directing the 1st
Defendant to pay the Plaintiff a
minimum of seven months salary
for each year for the number of
years in active service with the
1st Defendant.
v.
Damages for breach of contract
against the 2nd
Defendant.
vi.
Remuneration for the number of
days worked under the contract
of employment with the 2nd
Defendant with interest.
vii.
Interest on relief (ii) from 31st
December (sic) to date of final
payment.
viii.
Damages for the breach of the
fundamental human rights of the
Plaintiff.
ix.
Costs “
The Defendants entered
appearance together in which the
1st Defendant claimed
the following counterclaim
against the Plaintiff:-
1st Defendant repeats
paragraphs 1 to 33 of the
Statement of Defence and
Counterclaims against the
Plaintiff for the following
reliefs:-
a. A declaration that the
Plaintiff’s refusal and or
neglect to report for duty as
instructed by the 1st
Defendant (her Employers) after
the withdrawal of the exit
package she (Plaintiff) has
protested against, constituted a
vacation of post under the terms
and conditions of her
(Plaintiff) employment.
b. An order for the
recovery or refund of all the
entitlements totaling
GH¢66,066.14 paid into the
accounts of Plaintiff under the
said exit package.
c. Interest on the said
amount of GH¢66,066.14 from the
time 1st Defendant
notified Plaintiff of the
withdrawal of the package till
the final date of full refund.”
DECISION OF TRIAL HIGH COURT
The learned trial Judge after
trial, dismissed the Plaintiff’s
claims against the Defendants
and purportedly found for the 1st
Defendant’s on their
counterclaim.
APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL
Feeling dissatisfied with the
judgment of the High Court, the
Plaintiff appealed the decision
of the trial High Court to the
Court of Appeal which in a
unanimous decision dismissed the
appeal on the 26th
March 2015. Still undaunted, the
Plaintiff filed the instant
appeal to the Supreme Court.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL TO SUPREME
COURT
But for the decision to comment
on the numerous grounds of
appeal that the Plaintiff has
filed in flagrant breach of the
Supreme Court Rules 1996, C. I.
16, we would hot have found it
useful to refer to the said
numerous and repetitive 18
grounds of appeal that learned
counsel for the plaintiff filed
in this court. These are:
a) “That the Court of Appeal
erred when it dismissed the
Appellant’s appeal having held
that the Judgment of the Trial
Court was against the weight of
evidence.
b) That the Court of Appeal
erred when it held that the
Appellant was bound by the exit
package given under the
re-organisation exercise
conducted in 2009.
c) That the Court of Appeal
erred when it held that although
the Labour Act 2003 (Act 651),
was relevant for the
determination of the rights and
obligations of the parties in an
employment contract, the
underlining law for evaluating
the import of the actions of the
parties in this suit is the Law
of Contract.
d) That the Court of Appeal
erred when it held that the exit
package awarded to the Appellant
was not arbitrarily and
unilaterally determined.
e) That the Court of Appeal
erred when it held that the
Appellant’s failure to respond
to the 1st
Respondent’s withdrawal of the
package and for the Appellant to
work for the rest of the period
left for her retirement
constituted the Appellant’s
acceptance of the exit package.
f) That the Court of Appeal
erred when it held that the 2nd
Respondent terminated the
Appellant’s three-month contract
because the 1st
Respondent had agreed to restore
the Appellant to her original
contract of employment with the
1st Respondent.
g) That the Court of Appeal
erred when it held that the
Appellant had shown her
willingness to keep working with
the Trust Hospital on contract
as part of the redundancy
package and to keep the monetary
part of the package subject to
whatever enhancement her Lawyers
could negotiate for her.
h) That the Court of Appeal
erred when it held that the
Appellant’s actions communicated
only one of two concrete
statements:
i) The Appellant accepted
to be laid off, indeed, insists
on being laid off and she
accepted the redundancy package.
ii) The Appellant was
terminating her employment
contract with SSNIT and keeping
their redundancy money.
i) That the Court of
Appeal erred when it departed
from its own previous decision
in the case of Erisaac Press
v. Emmanuel Sallah [2013] 59 GMJ
142.
j) That the Court of Appeal
erred when it departed from the
Supreme Court’s decision in
Baiden v Graphic Corporation
[2003-05] 2 GLR 522.
k) That the Court of Appeal
erred when it failed to consider
the Appellant’s ground of Appeal
to the effect that “the Trial
Court erred when it held that
the Plaintiff had asserted in
her testimony that the decision
to disengage her was
unilaterally and arbitrarily
determined” by ruling that the
said ground of Appeal had no
value as a point of dispute
resolution.
l) That the Court of Appeal
erred when it failed to consider
the Appellant’s
ground of Appeal to the effect
that “the meeting of the
Standing Negotiating Committee
between Management of SSNIT and
the Executives of the Industrial
and Commercial Workers Union was
binding the
Plaintiff”.
m) That the Court of Appeal
erred when it dismissed the
Appellant’s ground of appeal
that “the trial judge erred when
he failed to consider the issue
of the unlawful termination of
the Plaintiff’s “Contract
Appointment” by the 2nd
Defendant”.
n) That the Court of Appeal
erred when it upheld the trial
judge’s decision to grant the
counterclaim of the Respondents.
o) That the Court of
Appeal erred when it failed to
consider the Appellant’s grounds
of appeal that “the trial judge
erred when he failed to consider
the issue that the 1st
Defendant declared the Plaintiff
redundant effective 31st
December 2012”.
p) That the Court of
Appeal erred when it failed to
consider the Appellant’s ground
of appeal that “the trial judge
erred when he failed to consider
the issue that the 1st
Defendant did not negotiate a
redundancy pay with the
Plaintiff or the representatives
of the Plaintiff as mandated by
law”.
q) That the Court of
Appeal erred when it failed to
state and apply in full the
principle enunciated by the
Supreme Court in the case of
Ashun v. Accra Brewery Limited
(2009) SCGLR 81.
r) That the Court of
Appeal erred when it failed to
consider the Appellant’s ground
of Appeal that “the trial judge
erred when he failed to consider
the issue that the 1st
Defendant discriminated against
the Plaintiff in the payment of
the redundancy pay”
s) Additional grounds
shall be filed upon receipt of
the record of Appeal.”
FRIVOLOUS, REPETITIVE AND
IRRELEVANT GROUNDS OF APPEAL
We are not only surprised but
infact dismayed at the above
grounds that learned counsel for
the Plaintiff filed on her
behalf to this court. We
consider the said conduct not
only as a fishing expedition but
also one that is futile as well.
FRIVOLOUS GROUNDS
Embarking on this futile mission
was what caused Counsel to file
18 grounds of appeal, most of
them vague and repetitive
because as hard and herculean as
the ill advised task she had
undertaken, Counsel then had no
choice but to throw everything,
as it were at the Court.
Counsel for the Defendants has
submitted that the grounds of
Appeal sin against Rules 6 (4)
and (5) of the Supreme Court
Rules CI 16, 1996, as same are
vague and disclose no reasonable
grounds of Appeal. Rules 6(4)
and (5) are in the following
terms:-
Rule 6 (4)
“The grounds of appeal shall set
out concisely and under distinct
heads the grounds upon which the
appellant intends to rely at the
hearing of the appeal, without
an argument or narrative and
shall be numbered seriatim and
where a ground of appeal is one
of law, the appellant shall
indicate the stage of the
proceedings at which it was
first raised.”
Rule 5
“No ground of Appeal which is
vague or general in terms or
discloses no reasonable ground
of appeal shall be permitted,
except the general ground that
the judgment is against the
weight of the evidence, and any
ground of appeal or any part of
which is not permitted under
this rule may be struck out on
its own motion or on the
application by the Respondent.”
Counsel further supported his
submission with the case of
Nunoofio v Farmers Services
Co. Ltd [2007-2008] SCGLR 926,
where Wood, JSC (as she then
was) stated as follows:
“The Court of Appeal was wrong
in holding that the termination
of the Plaintiff’s contract was
not wrongful, sinned against
Rules 6 (5) of the Rules of this
Court.”
She stated specifically at page
931 of the report as follows:-
“Not only does the ground of
appeal as formulated offend rule
6(5) of CI 16, but no
particulars of the errors of law
in particular are provided again
in flagrant disregard of the
rules of court. This flagrant
violation of the court rules,
which are intended, for good
reason to be obeyed to the
letter must not be encouraged.”
In this respect, it must be
reiterated that, learned Counsel
for the Defendants makes a sound
argument and it will be upheld.
The grounds of appeal as
formulated in grounds, (d) (e)
(g) (h) (k) (l) (m) (o) (q) (r)
and (s) are not only vague,
repetitive, irrelevant and also
lack substance as will soon be
established when we undertake a
forensic analysis of the said
grounds.
Indeed, apart from the grounds
of appeal which touches and
concerns the grant of the
counterclaim, in grounds (n) (a)
(b) and (c) the other grounds of
appeal filed actually sin
against the Supreme Court Rules
referred to supra.
For example grounds (b) (d) (e)
(g) (h) (k) and (r) are all
related to the exit redundancy
package and could have been
dealt with under one ground of
appeal. The remaining grounds of
appeal could also have been
subsumed under the omnibus
ground of appeal, to wit:
“That the judgment is against
the weight of evidence”.
In this respect, we wish once
again to remind learned counsel
that their duties under the
Legal Profession Act, 1960, Act
32, is a duty not only to their
clients but also to the court as
well as to protect their own
professional integrity and
competence.
We now turn our attention to the
following grounds of appeal.
ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL
The Plaintiff’s first ground of
appeal was that the Court of
Appeal erred when it dismissed
the Appellant’s appeal having
held that the judgment of the
trial court was against the
weight of evidence. In her
written submissions to the
court, she argued that the Court
of Appeal held that the judgment
of the trial court is against
the weight of evidence and yet
dismissed the Appellant’s
appeal. We will argue this
ground together with ground (n)
which is to the effect that the
Court of Appeal erred when it
upheld the trial court’s
decision to grant the
counterclaim.
This is what the Court of Appeal
stated when dealing with
Plaintiff’s ground in the Court
that the Judgment was against
the weight of the evidence:
“Although I disagree with the
Appellant on the substance of
her case and her Counsel’s
submissions that the court ought
to have given judgment in favour
of the Appellant, I totally
agree that the judgment was
against the weight of evidence.
The judgment is extremely
strange. After pronouncing
judgment in favour of the
Respondent, the subsequent
orders went totally awry in
relation to both the
counterclaims of the Respondent
and the claims of the Appellant.
The second and third
counterclaims prayed for an
order compelling the appellant
to return the exit package paid
to her with interest. The
Court made no such orders but in
effect, directed that the
appellant could keep the moneys
(sic) paid into her account,
purporting to rely on principles
of equity. In resolution of
the appellant’s claim that this
payment was inadequate, he
went further to order the
parties to go before the
National Labour Commission to
determine that issue. Thus
effectively, the court dismissed
the Respondent’s counterclaims,
while stating that he had
entered judgment for the
Respondent. It is important
to say that nowhere in her
claims did the Appellant pray to
be allowed to keep the
redundancy package as it stood,
or did she seek to go to the
negotiating table of the
National Labour Commission, but
these orders were made
ostensibly to protect her in
equity. …It is my considered
opinion that the learned trial
judge seemed to totally miss the
legal principles required to
resolve the dispute that had
been waged before him… It is
in this sense that I agree that
the judgment is against the
weight of the evidence.”
Emphasis
Simply put, all that the Court
of Appeal was saying was that
the judge ought not to have
substituted a whole new case for
the parties and gone ahead to
make orders completely at
variance with what they were
seeking in their reliefs. This
goes against the well known
principle of Dam v Addo
[1962] 2 GLR which
states that a judge ought not to
propio motu substitute a whole
new case for the parties.
However, a through examination
of the entire evidence on
record would clearly indicate
that the learned trial Judge did
not adequately consider the
Plaintiff’s case.
This is so because, if the
learned Judges of the Court of
Appeal had taken into
consideration the Plaintiff’s
evidence on the matter in the
appeal record, and also
considered the genesis of the
counter claim as indicated in
ground (n) of the grounds of
appeal, then a different
conclusion would have been
reached. This is how the
Plaintiff testified in the trial
High Court on this crucial
issue.
“After the accepted form has
been filled early on I said my
Solicitor wrote to SSNIT about
my dissatisfaction with the exit
package. So the Trust Hospital
Limited, wrote a letter to me
that they would not give me
contract until my issue with
SSNIT was resolved. So I asked
my Solicitor again to write to
them that the contract is
already in existence because I
signed everything, the contract
has been signed and everything
has been done already so upon
SSNIT hearing this now they are
replying the first letter I
wrote to them about the
dissatisfaction of my exit
package telling me that if I am
not able to pick the package
then they cannot do anything
about it. But rather they
would let me come back and work.
I should bring the monies
that has been paid to me. Around
24th December the
monies were paid into various
bank account. So they asked me
to bring the monies they gave
me. And some time to bring it
back to them and continue
working with SSNIT under the
conditions and terms which I was
working before but to work in
the Trust Hospital till I go on
my compulsory retirement.”
It is certain from the above
that, 1st Defendant
included the Plaintiff in the
compulsory redundancy package
without her consent. As a matter
of fact, as an employee and a
citizen of this country, the
Plaintiff has rights to evince
her contrary opinions about the
redundancy package and rightly
did so in our view. Furthermore,
her conduct in engaging
Solicitor’s to write to the
Defendants complaining about the
redundancy package paid to her
should not be used against her
punitively. From all indications
it appears to us that, the
Plaintiff had been penalised by
the Defendants for daring to
question the exit package, and
this found expression by the
counterclaim that they filed
against her.
From all of the above evidence
on record, it is clear that, the
plaintiff would have gone home
with the exit package if she did
not complain about it. The
question we ask ourselves is
what has changed after she
challenged the package? She was
directed to return the package
and resume work. Having failed
to resume work, she kept the
package and went to court. It is
clear therefore that, the
Plaintiff was penalised for
exercising her rights to go to
court. This is untenable. The
courts exist to do justice to
all manner of persons, and in
that regard, substantial justice
when the need arises.
In our respectful opinion, the
judgment in regards to the
portions of the judgment of the
Court of Appeal on the issue of
the counterclaim are against the
weight of evidence. This is so
because, from all the available
evidence, the Defendants would
not have counterclaimed if the
Plaintiff had not gone to court.
Furthermore, once the
Plaintiff’s action has been
rightly dismissed and which we
hereby confirm, the grant of the
1st Defendants
counterclaim is untenable as it
has not been proven to our
satisfaction.
We therefore allow these grounds
of appeal, and hold and rule
that the 1st
Defendants are not entitled to
their counterclaim, whilst
generally upholding the
dismissal of the Plaintiff’s
claims.
In our opinion, the resolution
of the second ground of appeal,
to wit;
“That the Court of Appeal erred
when it held that the Appellant
was bound by the exit package
given under the re-organsiation
exercise conducted in 2009”
would substantially dispose off
some of the remaining grounds of
appeal unless specifically
mentioned and dealt with in this
delivery.
The Plaintiff under
cross-examination reiterated the
fact that she belongs to Senior
Staff Association. Indeed when
the question was put to her
thus, she answered in the
affirmative.
Q. “So you belong to Senior
Staff Association?
A. Yes my Lord”
Earlier on, the Plaintiff also
admitted during
cross-examination, that dues
were deducted from her payslip
for this Senior Staff
Association.
The above testimonies therefore
clearly debunked the Plaintiff’s
assertions in her evidence in
chief that she did not authorise
anybody to negotiate any
redundancy package for her.
This is because, if we look at
Exhibit I, which are the minutes
of the Standing Negotiating
Committee of the 1st
Defendants and the ICU held on
the 6th day of
December, 2012 which had one
Desmond Amoah representing the (SSA)
at the negotiations of the
redundancy package for employees
of 2nd Defendants
presents
Under the heading, packages for
Affected Staff, the following
appears:-
“The Chairman said that the same
package that was negotiated and
approved by the management, ICU
and Senior Staff and used for
the year 2009 group would be
given to them. The difference
would arise out of salary
changes over the period”.
Emphasis
The above facts were clearly
stated in the unanimous judgment
of the Court of Appeal, rendered
by Torkornoo JA as follows:-
“An examination of exhibits 1
and 2 and the evidence of Mabel
Ofori, the respondent’s
representative found from pages
74 to 97 of Record of Appeal
confirm that the exit package
given to the appellant was
derived from a package that had
been arrived at from the
commencement of the
re-organisation exercise which
started in 2009. See paragraph
60 of exhibit I found on page
184 of the Record of Appeal.
Thus clearly, this package was
not arrived at in an arbitrary
manner. It has a historical
antecedent that is linked to the
commencement of the
re-organisation exercise.”
Consider section 65 (4) of the
Labour Act page 314 thereof.
EPILOGUE
We began this delivery by
reference to the words of the
scriptures on what a woman will
do when she loses her coin –
known as “parable of the
lost coin”. Indeed, if
the Plaintiff must be considered
as having lost her coin which
she proceeded to search for, in
this case through the court
action, no one should blame her
for doing that. It must have
been her just expectation that
she lost something that was
worth the while to look for,
In searching for this lost coin,
she engaged services of a
trained Solicitor to advice her
on the issues involved.
Having kicked in the legal
principles involved in the
Ashun v Accra Brewery
Limited, [2009]
SCGLR 81, case which
explained the rationale for the
exception of public law
provisions in employment
contracts similar to the instant
case, learned counsel for the
Plaintiff should have done the
necessary retreat and concede
the point when it became
apparent that the principle
would work against the
Plaintiff. That is the hallmark
of a good and competent legal
advisor. In the Ashun case
supra, as with this present
case, no public law exceptions
applied, therefore the principle
as espoused in the cases relied
upon by the Court of Appeal i.e.
Nartey-Tokoli v Volta Aluminium
Co. Limited [1987-88] 2 GLR 532,
Hemans v GNTC [1978] GLR 4,
G.C.M.B v Agbettoh [1984-86] 1
GLR 122 applied to the
circumstances of the Plaintiff
herein. It would therefore serve
no useful purpose to give
another exposition on the
principle stated in Ashum v
Accra Brewery Limited supra
as learned Counsel for Plaintiff
would want this court to do. It
should be noted that, acting in
and representing the best
interests of a client should not
willy-nilly result into
litigation as happened in this
case.
CONCLUSION
In the premises, the appeal
filed by the Plaintiff against
the Court of Appeal judgment of
26/3/2015 fails save that the
ground of appeal against the
grant of the 1st
Defendants counterclaim
succeeds.
J. V. M. DOTSE
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
W. A. ATUGUBA
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
P. BAFFOE-BONNIE
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
A.
A. BENIN
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
G. PWAMANG
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
COUNSEL:
SIKA ABLA ADDO FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.
BAFFOUR AKOTO WITH HIM JOSEPH
HACKSON AND WILSON JONES FOR THE
DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS/
RESPONDENTS.
|