Avornyo And 3 Others Vrs Ghana Bfroadcasting Corporation (E2/24/2019) [2024] GHAHC 291 (1 February 2024)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HO – VOLTA REGION CORAM: CHARITY A. ASEM (MRS.) J. SUIT NO. E2/24/2019 DATE: 1ST FEB., 2024 1. RALPH K. AVORNYO H/No. 28 Barracks – City Welding Road, Ho 2. GEORGE MOMADE Room 5, Block 9 SSNIT Flats, Ho PLAINTIFFS 3. JOHN GADOSSEY Of Ho 4. ROSE AGBINKU Of Godokpe, Ho VRS. GHANA BROADCASTING CORPORATION Broadcasting House Accra DEFENDANT Parties – 1st & 2nd Plaintiffs – Present. Others Absent. Defendant – Absent. Lawyers: Godwin Kpoble for the Plaintiffs – Absent. John Kwame Waja for the Defendants – Absent. 1 RULING The plaintiffs described themselves as employees of the Ghana Broadcasting Corporation and have all retired from defendant’s employment at different dates. According to these plaintiffs as contained in their Collective Bargaining Agreement between the employees and defendant, they were entitled to Service Packages Awards and Transport Grants and or End of Service Benefits and or Long Service Awards on their retirement from the employment of the defendant. According to the plaintiffs after their retirement they have made repeated demands on defendant to honour its obligation but they persistently failed and refused thereby causing untold hardships, frustration and inconvenience to them; hence this action. Defendant on the other hand upon entering appearance filed a defence dated the 17/06/2019. They denied plaintiffs’ claims forcefully. On the 27/06/2023 the defendant filed a Motion for Stay of Proceedings on the bases that; prior to the filling of plaintiffs’ case, the defendant had completed trials in the cases of Johnson Adu & Ors. Vs. Ghana Broadcasting Corporation (Suit No. HR/072/2019) and Festus Allotey Vs. Ghana Broadcasting Corporation (Suit No. H/62/2019) where the opinions of the courts, differently constituted differ significantly. It is defendant’s case that since the same High Court but differently constituted, had interpreted the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Defendant/Applicant and the Plaintiffs/Respondents differently, there was the need to seek an appellate 2 opinion. It is further canvassed that the defendants have appealed against the judgment of the High Court in the Festus Allotey Vs. Ghana Broadcasting Corporation which appeal is pending yet to be heard. According to defendants one of the core issues of the appeal which arises from the Festus Allotey Vs. Ghana Broadcasting Corporation judgment was whether the article in the Ghana Broadcasting Corporation imputing the obligation on the part of the defendant to pay Long Service Award (LSA) was Legal or not. Counsel submitted that the outcome of the appeal would have a legal effect on the present plaintiffs’ case and reliefs sought. They prayed therefore the proceedings herein be stayed pending the determination of the appeal. The application was opposed. I have studied the application from both sides based on the affidavit evidence presented. Though the defendant denies the pendency of any appeal process in the manner alluded to by the defendant, Exhibit ‘GCB 1’ filed on 27/06/2023 attached to defendant’s application is very instructive. The Court of Appeal had on the 20/12/2022 Coram H. Kwofie JA (Presiding) B. Essah & A Frimpong JSA upon an application by defendants herein for stay of proceedings and execution based on the two conflicting judgments reference to earlier had this to say; “We have read all the processes filed by counsel for the parties and heard counsel for the parties. We have realized that there are two conflicting judgments of the High Court differently constituted. One judgment specifically of Abodakpi J says the Appellant should pay Long Service Award whilst the judgment of Ananda Aikins J says the applicant should pay the Long Service Award. 3 Having regard to the conflicting nature of the two judgments and the effect on how the applicant deals with the payment of the Long Service Award, we are of the view that this calls for a definitive pronouncement from this court on the issue...” The Court of Appeal thus stayed execution of the judgment pending the determination of the Legal issues raised by the defendant/appellant, that is the defendant herein. Taking learnings from above, it is only prudent that cases involving payment of Long Service Award and its related issues in so far as the defendant corporation is concerned is stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. This is also to ensure that the court’s time and resources are not wasted. Also the clarification or determination will make such entitlement easy to determine. I will in the circumstance of this proceedings stay the trial pending the outcome of the court of appeal’s interpretation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant corporation. (SGD.) H/L, CHARITY A. ASEM (MRS.) J. (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT) 4 *sea. 5