IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF IUDICATURE, IN THE AUTOMATED FAST TRACK HIGH COURT, ACCRA HELD ON THURSDAY THE 2311D DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE E.A. ASANTE
SUIT NO.AHR. 90/2010
K. AMISSAH KOOMSON H/NO.2 16
BABA YARA

	

PARTIES ABSENT
EMMANUEL AMOFA FOR THE PLAINTIFF PRESENT BOB SENYALA FOR THE DEFENDANT PRESENT
Pensions - Entitlements - Terminal Benefits - Plaintiff suing for accrued entitlements for thirty- three and halfyears of service - whether defendant has breached conditions of service with regards to plaintiffs entitlements.
Land Law - Title Deeds - Pull Payment not made - Requirement for full payment.
 
JUDGMENT
•
The Plaintiff is a retired employee of the erstwhile Customs Excise and Preventive Services [CEPS] and now, a branch of the Ghana Revenue Authority, the Defendant herein. The Plaintiff's complaint is that he worked for the CEPS for a period of thirty three and a half [33.5] years but upon his retirement, he was denied the payment of his terminal benefits; hence instituted this action against the Defendants for the following reliefs:
a.	An order compelling the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff all his legitimate welfare package or accrued entitlements for his thirty three and a half years of service with the Defendant.
b.	An order compelling the Defendant to release the title deeds of his premises for which Plaintiff has fully discharged his obligations to the Defendant.
c.	Interest on the Plaintiff's accrued entitlements at the prevailing bank rate from 1st April 2008 to date of final payment.
d.	Costs.
From the Plaintiff's pleadings as well as his evidence at the trial, he contended that he retired from the employment of the Defendant on the 8th of March 2008 and became entitled to some end of service benefits to which all retired officers of the Defendant were entitled.
He maintained per his January 2008 pay slip which he tendered into evidence as exhibit "B", that his basic salary at the time of his retirement was GH4J,871.32. He went on to say that the entitlements which he was denied were:
[a] One large size deep freezer; [b] GH4460.00 being medical subsidy from 2008 to 2011; [c] Long Service Award of GI-1 5,613.96 being three months salary, and [d] a Certificate of Honour as per Article 40[1c] of their conditions of service which conditions he tendered into evidence as exhibit "A"; [e] GH02,689.22 being four (4) weeks salary for every year served; and [f] a kente cloth. The Plaintiff again stated in evidence that he purchased a vehicle from the Defendant and his salary had been over- deducted to the tune of GH78.00 and so he was entitled to a refund of it. In all therefore the Plaintiff contended that he was entitled to be paid the sum of GH08,243.21 from the Defendant by virtue of the Conditions of Service which the Defendant has refused to pay to him. He went on to say that whilst in the employment of the Defendant, he was granted a housing facility by the Defendant and so the title deeds of the premises were used as security and kept by the Defendant. He contends that he is left with the balance of GH4t257.00 which he expects the Defendant to deduct from his entitlements, but the Defendant has refused to do so and to release the
 
documents to him despite demands for it. In respect of the vehicle, the
• Plaintiff states that it was valued at GH4:6,300.00 by the State Transport Company and it was offered to him at the same amount by the Defendant and that from deductions made by the Defendant from his salaries, he has overpaid to the tune of GH75.64 to which he is entitled to a refund. The Plaintiff totally rejected and denied the Defendant's contention that his End of Service Award of three months' salary was GH43,208.29, that his welfare package was one week basic salary for every year served totaling GH48,269.48, and that his car loan balance stood at GH10,502.61. In all therefore he denied the Defendant's contention that the total amount due for collection by the Plaintiff from Defendant was GHc975.61.
From the statement of defence as well as the evidence at the trial, the Defendant denied being liable to the Plaintiff for his claims.
The Defendant contended strongly that under their conditions of service, there is nothing like retirement benefit comprising of four weeks' salary of every year served as claimed by the Plaintiff. Rather, the Defendant maintained that there was a special welfare package under which the Plaintiff was entitled to one weeks' basic salary for every year served. Again, the Defendant stated that upon the Plaintiff's retirement, he was entitled to a large size fridge or a deep freezer not a large deep freezer. The Defendant again contended that the Plaintiff is also entitled to a medical subsidy not exceeding GH440.00 per annum. Defendant also contended that the Plaintiff was entitled to three months basic salary as Long Service Award which Defendant quoted as GH43,208.29. The Defendant again maintained that the Plaintiff was owing on the car loan to the tune of GHc10,502.61. The Defendant again stated that the Plaintiff had not put in an application for the release of his documents to him as required and so it will be done if he applies for it upon final payment.
At the close of pleadings, the following issues were set out for the determination of the case:
a.	Whether or not the Plaintiff was in the service of the Defendant for thirty three and a half years.
b.	Whether or not the Plaintiff's entitlements consist of four [4] weeks' salary for every year served.
c.	Whether Defendant has complied with the payment of the Long Service Award under the Defendants' Conditions of Service.
d.	Whether the Defendant was required to release the title deeds of the Plaintiff's property after fully discharging his financial obligation to the Defendant.
 
4
e.	Whether the Defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff in respect of the car •	loan.
f.	Whether the Defendant has breached the Conditions of Service as regards the payment of Plaintiff's entitlements.
g.	Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to his claims.
Additional issues:
1.	Whether or not by the Conditions of Service for staff of the Defendant there is a provision for retirement benefits.
2.	Whether or not the officially documented award for retired officers of the Plaintiff category is a large size fridge or deep freezer and a medical subsidy not exceeding GH00.00 per annum.
3.	Whether or not in addition to the retirement award the Plaintiff is entitled to "Long Service Award" of three months' basic salary and a Certificate under Article 40 of the Conditions of Service for staff.
4.	Whether or not officers granted housing loans apply officially for the return of their title deeds used as collateral for the loan after fully discharging all obligations attached to the loan.
5.	Whether or not it is on record that as at the date of this suit Plaintiff had applied for the return of his title deeds.
I will deal with the issues raised as and when they arise. For me issue [a] as set out does not arise at all because the defendant has not disputed the Plaintiff's contestation that he worked for thirty three and half years. I therefore find as an undisputed fact that that the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant for thirty three and half years. On issue [b], whereas the Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to four weeks basic salary for every year served as his retirement award, the Defendant contended per its witness that he was entitled to one week basic salary for every year served. There is evidence on record that for lack of funds the Defendant agreed to pay two weeks and sometimes one week basic salary for each year served, depending on the year of retirement and availability of funds. For instance under cross-examination of the Defendant's Welfare Officer by the Plaintiff's counsel, he stated that those who retired in 2007 were paid two weeks basic salary for every year worked but those who retired in 2008 were paid one week's salary for every year worked as their retirement awards. It is also undisputed on record that the agreed period for the payment of the retirement award was four weeks for every year served and that those received payments for periods less than that would be re-imbursed when the time came for
 
S
the full payment. In the circumstances, since the Defendant's witness
• stated that they were in the position of paying two months, I hold that the Plaintiff herein is entitled to the payment of two weeks for every year served. The unchallenged evidence is that the Plaintiff's monthly basic salary at the time of his retirement was GH41,871.32. To buttress this contention, the Plaintiff tendered his pay slip for January 2008 into evidence as exhibit "B" I therefore order the Defendant to calculate the Plaintiff's retirement award based on this figure. I now come to the issue of the title deeds. The Plaintiff contended that he has just GH4257.00 left on his housing loan to repay and that the Defendants have failed to deduct it from his terminal benefits so they can release his title deeds to him. From the Defendant's contention, the Plaintiff has not fully paid for the facility; hence his title deeds have not been released to him. On this issue I agree with the Defendant's stance. The Plaintiff has to take steps to make full payment before his title deeds would be released to him. There was no agreement that the loan would be deducted from his terminal benefits. I therefore hold that the Plaintiff is entitled to the release of his title deeds from the Defendant immediately upon payment of the balance of GH257.00 to the Defendant. Upon payment of the balance, the Defendant is ordered to immediately release his title deeds to him. The next issue is on the payment of the car loan. In respect of this, the Plaintiff contended that the car was valued by the State Transport Company to cost GH6,300.00 and that in all the sum of GH6,378.64 had been deducted from his salary. He therefore contended that he had overpaid by GH478.64. The Plaintiff again exhibited the letter of request sent by the Defendant to the Intercity STC to value the
Plaintiff's vehicle together with other cars as exhibit "D". He also tendered the valuation report as exhibit "E" in proof of the price and he also tendered as exhibit "F" the offer letter from the Defendant offering the car for him at the valued price of GHc6,300.00. All these were admitted into evidence without objection by the defence counsel. The Defendants denied the Plaintiff's assertion that he had fully paid the car loan but were unable to state the debt position when asked to do so.
Upon request by the Plaintiff's counsel, the Defendants could not produce the account. The only available evidence for consideration by the court is the documents tendered by the Plaintiff. On the face of exhibit "B", the Plaintiff has overpaid the car loan and is entitled to a refund of the overpayment. I therefore order the Defendant to refund the Plaintiff's amount of GH478.64 to him. The issue of the Long Service Award does not arise at all. The Defendant's own witness admitted that the Plaintiff is entitled to End of Service Award of three months basic salary. I therefore find that the Plaintiff is entitled to be paid his End of Service Award of three months basic salary. The Defendant also admitted per its witness that the Plaintiff is entitled to a deep freezer and I order the Defendant to procure the said deep freezer to the Plaintiff. The other issue is the medical subsidy. The Defendant per its witness admitted that the Plaintiff
 
()
is entitled to be paid the sum of GH40.00 annually as medical subsidy
• but he was not practically entitled to it because no officer had been paid that subsidy. He however admitted that under article 36(4)ii all retirees including the Plaintiff who had worked for fifteen years and more were entitled to this subsidy. Following this admission, I find that the Plaintiff is entitled to be paid his medical subsidy of GH40.00 by the Defendant from 2008 when he retired until his death.
In sum therefore, I enter judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the following terms: Defendant is ordered to pay to the Plaintiff his terminal award being two weeks of his basic salary of GH1,871.32 for every year worked, with the remaining two weeks to be paid when the company decides to pay for all staff of the Plaintiff's category as agreed. Defendants are in addition ordered to pay to the Plaintiff his Long Service Award which is his three months basic salary. Defendant is also ordered to refund the Plaintiff's GH478.64 to him and in addition write a letter to transfer the titled to the Toyota Corolla to him. The Defendant is also ordered to release the Plaintiff's title deeds which he used to secure the loan to him upon payment of the outstanding balance of GH4257.00. The Defendant is also ordered to pay the Plaintiff his medical subsidy in terms of the Conditions of Service tendered as exhibit "A".
Upon the Defendant's own admission, it is ordered to buy the Plaintiff a large deep freezer refrigerator in accordance with the conditions of service. Interest is to be calculated on all sums adjudged to be paid to the Plaintiff by the Defendant. It is also ordered that all payments and orders made under this judgment are to be complied with within sixty days from today. I award cost of GH4,000.00 for the Plaintiff against the Defendant.
(SGD) EDWARD AMOAKO ASANTE
JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
EY/...
