Accumulated Leave in Ghana – Does the Law Frown on It?

Accumulated Leave in Ghana – Does the Law Frown on It?

By Ernest Osei-Afful, Esq.[1]

Leave or holidays are part of the compensation package or benefits to which all workers are entitled. Section 20 of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651) provides that every worker shall be entitled to leave (minimum of fifteen days per full year). The number of leave days a worker is entitled to, the manner and circumstances of enjoying such leave entitlements are matters that are subject to contract between the worker and his employer but shall not contradict the minimum provisions in Act 651. The issue of leave entitlement has become a heated matter in Ghana now following the President’s directive to the Auditor-General to proceed on his accumulated leave and the latter’s express disagreement with the directive. The ongoing debate is in two legs: whether the President has the power to direct the Auditor-General in the manner which he so did; and whether accumulated leave is countenanced under the employment laws of Ghana. This essay focuses on the latter question.[2] 

I will discuss the nature of leave under Ghana law, delve into accumulated leave and how the law deals with it and proffer advice to both employers and employees; I will further take a journey through the Public Services Commission’s treatment of the subject and conclude that under Ghana law leave accumulates so long as it remains unspent or unutilised except under specific exceptions. 

Nature of Leave under Ghana Law 

Act 651 provides for two categories of leave. The first category is “event-based” leave and the second, “annual leave”. The former is earned upon the occurrence of a specific event such as maternity leave and sick leave. However, some organisations out of magnanimity or agreement have other forms of leave such as compassionate leave, study leave, paternity leave and sabbatical leave, amongst others which are mostly event-based. This category is not prescriptive under the law but once it is awarded it becomes binding upon the employer. The significant point is that an event-based leave, whether prescriptive or voluntary, becomes due upon the occurrence of the event that gives rise to it. For instance, section 57 of the Act provides that upon certification, an expectant mother is entitled to a minimum of twelve weeks maternity leave. In a similar vein, section 24 provides for sick leave which is independent of the annual leave. It needs to be emphasised that a worker is entitled to any of these event-based forms of leave only upon the occurrence of the event giving rise to it. Thus, a non-expecting mother cannot be entitled to maternity leave, and so will a healthy worker not be entitled to sick leave. It is therefore my view that by its very nature, an event-based leave cannot be deferred or accumulated. This is more so because, an event-based leave is granted to the worker to afford her the time necessary to help her deal with a specific event-bound situation. Sick leave must be granted to enable the worker recuperate, study leave for studies and in that manner. In effect, once a worker fails to utilise the event- based leave, she forfeits it since the same cannot be deferred, postposed or commuted to cash. 

In contrast, annual leave is of a different character. Leave is a health and safety as well as productivity matter and both worker and employer have roles to play in ensuring this is utilised. Article 24 of the Constitution and Part IV of Act 651 deal extensively with it. The law provides for the minimum threshold of fifteen working days per calendar year of full service.[3] This is only the minimum and organisations are at liberty to increase but not reduce this number. The worker is required to be paid his usual salary whilst on leave, in accordance with section 20(2) of Act 651. 

Accumulation of Leave 

The controversy that has arisen is whether leave can be accumulated. First, we need to examine the nature of annual leave. Unlike an event-based leave, annual leave is not triggered by any exceptional circumstance but accrues to the worker just like any other benefit or right that accrues to the worker by virtue of her employment rights. The employment relation is a special type of contract governed by agreement between the employer and the employee. Act 651 provides the minimum threshold below which an employee cannot be engaged. In fact, section 105(4) provides that where a collective agreement is able to negotiate better terms more favourable to the worker, the same will prevail against what Act 651 provides. In terms of varying an employee’s rights under Act 651, the law only allows the parties to negotiate more favourable terms for the benefit of the worker and not otherwise. Thus, an employer cannot provide a worker with terms that are worse than what is afforded under Act 651. In my view, it becomes difficult to anticipate how a better benefit will accrue to the worker where she stands to forfeit her annual leave. 

Many proponents of leave forfeiture may be tempted to rely on section 31 of Act 651 which prohibits agreement to forgo leave. This was the argument of the appellant in the Court of Appeal case of Samuel M. K. Adrah v. Electricity Company of Ghana (Adrah)[4] The respondent had accumulated 249 days of annual leave for which he was subsequently granted. However, this was terminated by the appellant company under the guise that accumulated leave is prohibited under Act 651. However, the Court of Appeal disagreed with this argument. The Court agreed with the trial judge that neither section 31 nor any other provision of Act 651 has outlawed commuting accumulated leave to cash. It therefore proceeded to commute the accumulated leave to cash which was equivalent to circa 10.6 months’ salary. Regarding compiling the accumulated leave, the court purposively construed the leave provisions of Act 651. It concluded per Ofoe JA that “… legally it is not every agreement to forgo leave that is void simpliciter and for which accumulated leave yields no benefits for the worker.” 

In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeal partially reviewed the leave process in the appellant company, which is largely similar to that of many employers. 

I have indicated earlier that the employer-employee relationship is a special type of contract. However, the balance of power in most cases tilts towards the employer who is likely to call the shots in many instances. Perhaps, that is the reason why section 27 places the burden of administering the leave processes and other functions on the employer. The rights of the employer as provided in section 8 includes assigning work, disciplining the worker, modifying work, extending or ceasing operations, transferring the worker, amongst others. Although, the rights of the worker include having rest in the form of break and leave days, such rights can only be enjoyed when approved by the employer. Typically, the worker will have to apply to the employer for her leave and the employer will have the discretion to approve, review or defer the same. In a situation where the employer defers the leave it can go beyond the current labour year. In some other instances, the employer may have under-employed, making it difficult to release workers to utilise their full leave days as was seen in the Adrah case. It will surely be unacceptable to deprive such workers, whose leave may have accumulated, the right to utilise same, especially through no fault of theirs. 

Furthermore, there may be other instances where leave may accumulate including a worker taking an earlier event-based leave such as sick or maternity leave or even public holiday,[5]voluntary communal work and civil duties,[6] interruptions by the employer,[7] and where a suspended worker is restored to her employment.[8]Clearly, in all these instances leave may be accrued and the worker does not forfeit it upon the passage of that specific event. There is another category of workers who may not have utilised their leave not because of pressures of work but due to personal or other factors. For instance, a worker may not take any initiative towards utilising his leave due to toxic atmosphere at home arising from failed marriage. Some workers may also choose to accumulate their leave days for personal commitments outside their employment. It is therefore necessary that the employer takes charge of the leave administration and regulate how workers spend their leave days. This may partly be a reason why section 27 of Act 651 empowers the employer to manage the leave portfolio of its workers as discussed below. 

Leave administration, is a management function which should be administered by the employer in accordance with section 27 of Act 651. It is therefore imperative that the employer exercises the responsibility of ensuring workers take their leave in a systematic manner. Where the employer allows for leave days to be taken but the worker refuses to utilise the same it may be difficult for that worker to raise non-utilisation of her leave and assert accumulation. This is more complicated by the fact that no one can be compelled to enjoy his right or benefit, although a person can be compelled to perform an obligation. However, a careful scrutiny of section 27 of Act 651 affirms that the employer ought to facilitate the leave administration. It is therefore prudent that an employer will take positive steps to enable the worker to enjoy her leave. It therefore behoves on the employer to create the atmosphere for the worker to utilise her leave, otherwise the employer will be estopped from denying the worker in the future. 

In the Adrah case, the Court of Appeal recounted the historical context for section 31 of Act 651. Specifically, workers were in the habit of agreeing with their employers to convert their outstanding leave days to cash. This made the workers richer, but had the propensity of putting these workers under immense stress. This risky practice had to be stopped. Indeed, it also had the additional disadvantage of reducing productivity due to poor rest as a result of not going on vacation. It stood to reason that leave be made mandatory to ensure such workers utilised their leave. Nevertheless, agreement to forgo leave is not the same as prohibition or forfeiture of unspent leave. It is not surprising that the plaintiff was allowed to convert his unspent 249 days of accumulated leave days to cash. 

So, what happens if a worker is unable to utilise his leave days? Save for situations where the worker refuses to utilise his leave when granted, in almost all other cases, the leave will accumulate and the employer may stand the risk of having to convert same to cash as seen in Adrah. 

A similar conclusion was reached in a South African case of WJ Ludick v Rural Maintenance (Pty) Ltd[9]where the South African Labour Court held that “… the employee is entitled to accumulate the annual leave as it accrues to him in each period …” In that said decision, the court relied on a previous South African case of Jardine v Tongaat-Hullet Sugar Ltd[10] that depriving the worker of the accumulated leave will be denying her of her right to leave. In reaching this conclusion, the court reasoned that the Act upon which the claim was made imposed a duty on the employer to grant the leave but no right on the worker to initiate or take the same.[11]Although this decision has no binding effect in Ghana, the principle is rich. Clearly, leave is a benefit, a right that cannot easily be taken away from a worker. The employer in accordance with section 27 of Act 651 has to manage the leave process. It is its responsibility to ensure it facilitates the leave process as much as possible. In effect, the employer cannot play the ostrich and seek later on to deprive the worker of annual leave even where the same accumulates. That may be tantamount to ridding her of a benefit without justification. 

Advice to Employers and Employees 

To the employer, there is the need to maintain an active leave plan and insist the workers utilise their leave. One truth is that a worker who refuses to take her leave may be a risk to the organisation. Such risk may be in relation to performance, fraud or health. I will prefer the employer making utilisation of leave an appraisal issue for both the worker and her supervisor, for instance, to ensure workers go on vacation. Employers must specifically communicate leave periods and document them properly. Finally, they should maintain documentary evidence that will confirm they duly required the worker to take his leave or approved the same. 

The worker, on the other hand, must apply for the leave where the employer does not initiate it. Where leave is interrupted, the employer is required to reschedule it and pay the cost associated with the interruption. Moreover, the worker should not intentionally refuse to utilise her leave unless specifically prevented or recalled by the employer. In such situations, it will be appropriate to keep proper records of same. 

The Public Services Commission’s Policy 

The Public Services Commission was spot on when it concluded that “[C]urrently, the uncontrolled level of accrual of annual leave and its attendant requests for committal to cash is not only a drain on State coffers, but more importantly, may be silently creating unfavourable health conditions among public servants.”[12] 

Its antidote as enshrined in its Revised Policy Framework on Leave Entitlements and Management for the Public Services of Ghana (the Policy) includes the restriction of accrual of annual leave within the public service. The Policy limits such accruals to a maximum of two years, beyond which a person can only be entitled to “appropriate approval” and ought to seek the same from the Governing Boards and Councils. With the backdrop of the challenges enumerated in the Policy such as high levels of leave accruals, high rate of absenteeism and unethical conduct by staff,[13]this Policy is generally lawful. However, specific issues may arise where the management of the institution fails to ensure the proper application of the terms of the Policy. For instance, the Policy attempts to shift the responsibility so much on the worker as against the employer in the leave administration. This is against the clear intents of section 27 of Act 651 which places the obligation on the employer to administer the leave. I maintain that where the employer fails to ensure the worker takes her annual leave it will be unlawful for that employer to deprive the worker of such accumulated leave under the guise of the law or policy. It is common knowledge that policy cannot be used to trump the law, especially so in employment relations where workers are expected to have a more favourable treatment than employers. 

On the flip side, the Policy makes some reasonable provisions, which if complied with will make it easier for the employer to succeed in invalidating such accrued leave. The Policy requires workers to apply for their leave within specified time for same to be compiled into a roster by the institution’s Human Resources Manager. I will add that the Human Resources Manager or a designated officer of the employer should by duty ensure that she has communicated the procedure, process and approvals to the worker. She should specifically communicate to the worker the effective date of the leave and record it. Once all these are done, the worker will have no basis to dispute utilising the leave whether she actually does so or not, unless specifically proven. However, where the employer fails to create the opportunity, leave will accrue and remain outstanding. 

What is uncertain is how the Policy concluded on a two-year cap regarding accumulation. From the foregoing, it is blatantly clear that in the light of the decision in Adrah and the clear intentions of Act 31, the two-year cap is a policy not mirroring the law. There is no indication that a two-year maximum annual leave accumulation was the intention of the drafters of Act 651. Had it been so, same should have been stated categorically in the Act. In the absence of any such categorical limitation, the Public Services Commission or any employer covered by section 1 of Act 651 cannot seek to limit leave utilisation through such unilateral policies or even by mutual agreement. The only justification for forfeiting annual leave is where the worker failed to utilise the opportunity after it was presented to him. 


Leave is a benefit that cannot easily be deprived of a worker just as any other right. In my view, a purposive interpretation of the Labour Act (without more), does not lead to the conclusion that annual leave is forfeited at the end of the current labour year. That will amount to depriving the worker of an accumulated right which in itself is against the principles underpinning the Act. I am well convinced that the current state of our employment laws in Ghana permit employees to accumulate their leave unless the same was previously rejected when granted or legitimately excused. The law places an obligation on the employer to administer the leave and where it fails to do so, it will be estopped from depriving the worker the right to the accrued leave. 

[1] The author is a Barrister & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Ghana and Member, Inst. of Human Resource Mgt Practitioners. This article remains the property of the author and no part of it can be reproduced except with the written authorisation of the author.

[2] The author chooses to focus solely on the subject of accumulated leave which is independent of whether the  President’s directive to the Auditor-General is lawful. It is my expectation that the other question will be treated in a separate article. 

[3] Section 20(1) of Act 651

[4] (2018) JELR 69728 (CA) ( unreported)

[5] Section 22 of Act 651

[6] Section 23 of Act 651

[7] Section 25 of Act 651

[8]  Section 29 of Act 651

[9] JS 633/07) [2013] ZALCJHB 291; [2014] 2 BLLR 178 (LC) (accessed via on 3 July 2020).

[10] [2003] ZALC 33 (accessed via on 3 July 2020).

[11] See paragraph 18

[12] Revised Policy Framework on Leave Entitlements and Management for the Public Services of Ghana, p.2.

[13] See pages 1-2 of the Policy.

+ posts
Share This


Wordpress (32)
  • comment-avatar
    Alex Peter. Ankrah 4 years

    Can I share the document?


  • comment-avatar
    Alex Peter Ankrah 4 years

    Very insightful article. Thanks counsel

  • comment-avatar
    Simon Bangni 4 years

    Nice read, highly educative on the plausibility of a right to ‘accrued leave’.

    It appears though that your essay did not address the following issue:
    1. whether an employer who fails to administer a leave roster can compel an employee to proceed on an unrecorded ‘accumulated leave’ ?

    Is the Adrah Case applicable in respect of the issue raised herein?

  • comment-avatar

    Great piece and very thought provoking

  • comment-avatar

    Thanks for such an insightful article. Even though I understand the labour laws, this article has further enhanced by knowledge regarding the examples from previous court decisions.

  • comment-avatar
    Hopkins Adunah 4 years

    nice read💪🏾🔥

  • comment-avatar

    Interesting read. Save that you were silent on section 19 of Act 651?


  • comment-avatar
    Michael Asiedu Dankwah 4 years

    Thank you lawyer for the education but still didn’t meet my expectation, whether the president was right in ordering the Auditor General to proceed on accumulated leave. And also whether the Auditor General is an employee of the president .

  • comment-avatar
    Koby 4 years

    Interesting perspective. It appears to me that the jury is still out there on “leave accumulation ” there is the need for the court to make a definite pronouncement on the true and proper position. Good read, counsel

  • comment-avatar
    Richard Dua-Ansah 4 years

    great stuff Ernest👏👏👏 well done. Just a little to add. I think commuting annual leave to cash is permissible where the worker is exiting the employment. if the worker is to remain in the employment, then I think the employer has to allow the worker to enjoy the unspent leave unless the worker was granted the leave and the worker neglected to proceed on the leave. in the Adrah case, the worker had been notified of termination of his employment, and once he was gonna get out, the court granted the leave accumulated to be commuted to cash. it appears to me that commuting accumulated leave to cash where the worker is still at post will offend section 31. but i really enjoyed your argument to conclude that leave accumulation is not frowned upon by the law🙌🙌🙌

  • comment-avatar
    Clement Tahiru 4 years

    I acknowledge this is thought provoking and an ‘eye opener’. In addition, Professor Asare is at the Supreme Court for interpretation of same.

    So we wait and see…

  • comment-avatar
    Ik 4 years

    Interesting reading but you did not address the issue of can employer force employee to take outstanding leave

  • comment-avatar
  • comment-avatar
    MM 4 years

    …. cannot be simpler and easy to read to those of us with non-legal minds . The issue of leave accrual is straight forward under the IFRS where employers accrue for accumulated leave . The question still remains , whether employers voluntarily pay out the cash equivalents to employees in practice .
    Senior , good job

    • comment-avatar
      Ernest 4 years

      Thanks. Paying employees cash in exchange for leave is what s.31 of Act 651 prohibits. Leave has to be taken by the employee so long as she remains an employee – whether accumulated or otherwise.

  • comment-avatar
    Stephen Asante Bekoe 4 years

    Very instructive and insightful. Thanks Counsel.

  • comment-avatar

    A classic narrative of leave administration in Ghana as well as the rights and responsibilities on the part of both employers and employees. The implications for both sides speak volumes. If the essence of leave is based on productivity, health and fraud, then your guess is as good as mine.
    Thanks for this insightful exposition, Counsel!

  • comment-avatar
    Edward kareweh 4 years

    It’s interesting reading the views of the writer. The writer is right stating that leave it a right to the worker.

    However, I have a problem with his analysis of the right of annual leave to the worker.

    1). The right to annual leave is conferred on the worker by statute, section 20 of the Labour Act 651.

    2). The right to annual leave is extinguishable after 12 calendar months, section 31 of Act 651.

    3). Annual leave, therefore cannot be accumulated, because it does not exist after 12 months.

    On the question of leave administration, the employer has a discretionary responsibility.
    1). The employer has the discretion to decide which month in the year the employee should take his/her annual leave.

    2). The employer has the power to defer the employee’s leave from one month to another.

    3). The employer also have discretion to grant the employee leave in portions. That is, the employee taking part and the rest of the later in the year.

    4). The discretion of the employer to defer annual leave is limited to, and within the 12 calendar months.

    5). Under no circumstance should the employer defer leave into the subsequent year. Because such an act will be contradictory to section 31 of the Labour Act 651.

    The writer cited Samuel Adrah v ECG case to support his claim that annual leave can be accumulated. The ratio (reasoning) in this case is different and does not support the position of accumulated leave.

    The brief facts of the case is, Adrah was on his accumulated leave from some part of 2010 to 2011. While on leave Adrah was declared redundant and part of the agreement between the Senior staff Association and management of ECG was that the rest of Adrah’s leave days he had not enjoyed should not be paid. Adrah then sued ECG at High Court for infringement of his right. He argued that the Senior Staff Association had no power to negotiate on a benefit which was personal to him.

    The Court held that the ECG had to commute to cash the remaining leave days of Adrah, which he was in the process of enjoying but for the interruption by management by way of the termination of his employment.

    THE ECG appealed to the Court of Appeal. The court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by ECG and affirmed the High Court decision. It is therefore not true that the Court of Appeal declared that annual leave can be accumulated.

    • comment-avatar
      Ernest 4 years

      I’ll request that you read the Adra case again, it appears your appreciation of it is contrary to the actual decision made by the CA. Again, s.31 isn’t referring to accumulation of leave per se (which the Act doesn’t explicitly provide for), it is only referring to forfeiture of leave based on agreement between the employer and the employee. You may also want to refer to the preparatory documents of Act 651 which gives the background to the Act. Indeed, what the legislature set out to do was to outlaw the culture where employees sold their annual leave to their employers (which used to be very popular prior to 2003). You need to understand the history, background, practice and law very well to be able to conclude on this matter.

  • comment-avatar
    Collins Mensah 4 years

    Can someone help me?
    Is there any precedent, in Ghana or any common law country, of the president or equivalent ordering the head of an institution the constitution declares independent of control by any branch of government,.for example the speaker of parliament, chief justice etc?

  • comment-avatar
    Collins Mensah 4 years

    Can someone help me?
    Is there any precedent, in Ghana or any common law country, of the president or equivalent ordering the head of an institution the constitution declares independent of control by any branch of government,.for example the speaker of parliament, chief justice etc to go on leave ?

  • comment-avatar
    Oduro Mantey 4 years

    Very interesting piece but the Adrah case cannot be relied to explain the accumulation of leave without the express consent of the employer.

    • comment-avatar
      Ernest 4 years

      Can you give your reasons for this conclusion?

  • comment-avatar
    Mercy Quaynor 4 years

    Very insightful indeed, great submission. I never knew leave not taken or enjoyed in a particular calendar year was still valid in the preceeding year(s). This means some organizations are really cheating their workers as they don’t allow that.
    I knew about sick leave, compassionate, maternity leave etc but never knew it was referred to as “event based leave”. Great article by all standards.

  • comment-avatar
    Zygash 4 years

    Most employers have misinterpreted the Labour Act for a long time and cannot seem to comprehend that by its intent, the employer cannot be a player and a referee at the same time. That is having the responsibility to administer the leave and at the same time having opportunity to set aside the leave at the end of the calendar year.

    If the employer is not able to ensure the employee takes the leave, the same employer cannot say the leave has been forfeited. The leave must accrue.

  • comment-avatar
    KO 4 years

    Is an employee on probation, entitled to leave, if even its after successfully serving the probation?

  • comment-avatar

    The Constitution 1992 does not expressly prohibit discrimination on the grounds of medical history. However, the Data Protection Act protects the medical information of workers as confidential data. The law also protects the rights of pregnant women. Specifically, a pregnant woman in her fourth month of pregnancy must not be assigned to a role or task which will be detrimental to her health and the health of her child. In addition, pregnant women are entitled to maternity leave with pay when their child is due.

  • comment-avatar
    Maame Esi 4 years

    Does an employee who has been on sick leave for over a year entitled to convert his accumulated leave into cash upon termination of appointment?

  • Disqus ( )