Court Slaps GH¢1,000 Cost On Two Workers

Two workers of Blue Skies Products Ghana Limited, a fruit processing company at Nsawam in the Eastern Region, risk going to prison, if they are unable to pay GH¢1,000.00 cost slapped on them by the Industrial and Labour Division of the High Court.

This followed an order by the court, presided over by Mr Justice Kwabena Asuman-Adu, for the two workers to pay the cost within seven days, effective November 6, 2009, “else I will be compelled to commit them into prison.”

The two workers, Richard Brakatu and Felix Djan, had filed an application before the court praying for an order of committal for contempt against the acting General Manager of Blue Skies Products Ghana Limited, Mrs Ruth Smith Adjei.

According to the applicants, they issued a writ against Blue Skies Products Ghana Limited and three others, including Mrs Adjei.

They contended that while the suit was pending, the respondent declared the first applicant, Richard Brakatu redundant and went ahead to write a letter to Felix Djan, warning him in a bid to intimidate or coerce them to discontinue the suit.

The applicants further contended that the actions of the respondent, therefore, amounted to interference in the suit calculated to prevent them from going on with the suit.

This, they further argued, was “an affront to the administration of justice and it brings same into disrepute and as such contempt of this court.”

“By making the first applicant redundant, his status as an employee has been compromised, an act intended to obstruct him from pursuing his claim.

“The act of the respondent in respect of the application was made in bad faith. It was done to undermine the administration of justice by ignoring laid-down procedures for carrying out redundancy exercise and disciplinary actions under respondent’s own Pay and Conditions Hand Book and the Labour Act 2003 (Act 651),” an affidavit in support of the application averred.

It further asserted that the warning letter sent to Felix Djan conflicted with the Hand Book and sought to intimidate and coerce him to abandon the pursuit of justice and contradicted with Regulation 1 of Legislative Instrument 1833.

In her affidavit in opposition, the respondent affirmed that she had done nothing wrong to denigrate the authority of the court and was, therefore, not guilty of contempt.

In its ruling, however, the court said the applicants failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the actions of the respondent were contemptuous.

The judge, Mr Justice Asuman-Adu said the standard of proof required in contempt proceedings was proof beyond reasonable doubt.

“The applicants could neither do this in their affidavit in support nor in their counsel’s submission in court. All they did was to tell the court what the respondent did which is not in doubt.

“As to whether the act constitutes contempt, they could not prove that beyond reasonable doubt,” he remarked.




SOURCE DAILY GUIDE