This submission is on two correspondences and a pay voucher they tendered as exhibits attached to an affidavit in opposition to the Defendant’s motion at the High Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs action on the grounds that the action was statute barred. The application was dismissed. The Defendant unsuccessfully tried to have the issue considered by the High Court in its judgment. The Defendant submits before us that the exhibits or evidence relied on by the Plaintiff were not helpful to Plaintiffs’ case. We have considered the evidence on record and we find no evidence to support the findings by the of Appeal that the Defendant was willing to settle with Plaintiffs for payment under the scheme. Payments made so far were made to employees whose right to payment accrued before 1990; and also ex-gratia awards to those who were affected by retrenchment or redundancy of some employees in the Bank. These negotiations on the redundancy were done with the labour union as the labour laws required. Also the correspondence between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant before the issue of these two suits did not in any way indicate the Defendant accepted liability. Accordingly we hold that the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Defendant by its conduct waived its rights under the Limitation Act. We set this aside. From the foregoing we hold that the judgment of the Court of Appeal was against the weight of evidence. Accordingly the appeal succeeds and the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside. The Plaintiffs’ action in both suits is dismissed. (SGD) S. O. A. ADINYIRA (MRS) JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT (SGD) R. C. OWUSU (MS) JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT (SGD) J. V. M. DOTSE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
This submission is on two correspondences and a pay voucher they tendered as exhibits attached to an affidavit in opposition to the Defendant’s motion at the High Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs action on the grounds that the action was statute barred. The application was dismissed. The Defendant unsuccessfully tried to have the issue considered by the High Court in its judgment. The Defendant submits before us that the exhibits or evidence relied on by the Plaintiff were not helpful to Plaintiffs’ case. We have considered the evidence on record and we find no evidence to support the findings by the of Appeal that the Defendant was willing to settle with Plaintiffs for payment under the scheme. Payments made so far were made to employees whose right to payment accrued before 1990; and also ex-gratia awards to those who were affected by retrenchment or redundancy of some employees in the Bank. These negotiations on the redundancy were done with the labour union as the labour laws required. Also the correspondence between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant before the issue of these two suits did not in any way indicate the Defendant accepted liability. Accordingly we hold that the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Defendant by its conduct waived its rights under the Limitation Act. We set this aside. From the foregoing we hold that the judgment of the Court of Appeal was against the weight of evidence. Accordingly the appeal succeeds and the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside. The Plaintiffs’ action in both suits is dismissed. (SGD) S. O. A. ADINYIRA (MRS) JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT (SGD) R. C. OWUSU (MS) JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT (SGD) J. V. M. DOTSE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
EMMANUEL%20C.%20PLANGE%20%26%20437%20ORS.%20VRS.%20GHANA%20COMMERCIAL%20BANK.docx