National Labour Commision Vrs Ghana Telecommunication Ltd [2019] GHASC 12 (13 January 2019)

National Labour Commision Vrs Ghana Telecommunication Ltd [2019] GHASC 12 (13 January 2019)

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was entitled to review the justification of the Commission's order before enforcement, especially where the order was not made under the relevant statutory provisions and where the Commission substituted its own charge and regulation. The Commission's order was incomplete and unenforceable due to lack of specificity on accrued benefits, and the Commission acted outside its jurisdiction by substituting a different regulation for the basis of its decision.

Citation
[2019] GHASC 12
Parties
Applicant/appellant: National Labour Commission; Respondent/respondent: Ghana Telecommunications Ltd
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
13 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Enforcement of Commission Orders, Jurisdiction of High Court, Scope of Appellate Review, Disciplinary Procedures
Source Language
English
Labour Law Administrative Law Unfair Dismissal Enforcement of Commission Orders Jurisdiction of High Court Scope of Appellate Review Disciplinary Procedures

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Labour Commission

Applicant/appellant

Ghana Telecommunications Ltd

Respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court can question the correctness of the National Labour Commission's decision when asked to enforce it
  2. 2 Whether the Commission substituted its own case for that of the petitioner by relying on a different regulation
  3. 3 Whether the Commission's order was incomplete and unenforceable for lack of specificity on accrued benefits

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was entitled to review the justification of the Commission's order before enforcement, especially where the order was not made under the relevant statutory provisions and where the Commission substituted its own charge and regulation. The Commission's order was incomplete and unenforceable due to lack of specificity on accrued benefits, and the Commission acted outside its jurisdiction by substituting a different regulation for the basis of its decision.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed