Wednesday, April 30, 2008

MTN, Aggrey case for trial

April 30, 2008 (Page 31)

FOLLOWING the non attainment of a settlement between parties at the pre-trial conference under commercial court rules between a Ghanaian businessman, Mr Richmond Aggrey, and Scancom Ghana Limited, operators of Areeba (now MTN), Investment Consortium Holdings, SA (Investcom), the majority shareholders of MTN, and Grandview Management over a shareholding dispute, the parties have been referred for trial.
Consequently, Mr Aggrey began testifying in the case at the Commercial Court in Accra yesterday and stated that he pulled out of the company and nominated his cousin to hold his shares because his continued stay in the company at the time was seen as a risk to its growth.
Mr Aggrey and the defendants went into pre-trial conference following another court’s ruling on Thursday, December 6, 2007 which restrained Investcom from seeking arbitration in the matter.
Investcom was seeking arbitration in the London Court of Arbitration but counsel for Mr Aggrey, Mr Yonni Kulendi, filed an application for interlocutory injunction restraining Investcom from further proceeding with the arbitration.
The court held that the issues in controversy before it were not issues that could be determined by arbitration, adding that the issues could be heard by a Ghanaian court of competent jurisdiction.
It, accordingly, upheld submissions by counsel for Mr Aggrey that he could not be called to go on arbitration, which was normally between shareholders, because, as it stood now, Investcom was challenging Mr Aggrey’s claim of 20 per cent shares in Scancom Ghana Limited.
Following the court’s ruling and the fact that none of the parties had filed a new application, a pre-trial conference between the parties was held at the Commercial Court complex in Accra.
The new Commercial Court rules require that there should be a pre-trial conference to offer parties an opportunity to settle their differences within 30 days after they had filed their pleadings, which they had so far done.
At the pre-trial conference, heard in camera and presided over by another judge, the parties were not able to resolve the matter within the 30-day period so it was referred for trial.
After the collapse of the talks at the pre-trial conference, Investcom filed another application to stay execution of the court’s decision to stop it from going ahead with arbitration in London but that application was also thrown out on April 4, 2008.
At the Commercial Court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, Mr Aggrey, in his evidence-in-chief, informed the court that he joined Scancom in the mid 1990s and acquired 20 per cent shares, making him the second largest shareholder at the time.
He said he was made the Vice-Chairman of the company after acquiring 20 per cent shares in the company.
Led by his counsel, Mr Aggrey said he was informed by an unknown Lebanese who told him that Scancom would be in jeopardy if he (Mr Aggrey) did not pull out of the company.
He said he called the Minister of Communications at the time, who confirmed what the Lebanese had told him.
Following that development, Mr Aggrey said he left for Nigeria and, accordingly, nominated his cousin, Mr Chris Wilmot, to hold his shares.
He continues with his evidence-in-chief on May 7, 2008.
In November 2006, Scancom, operators of MTN (then Areeba), filed an appeal challenging the Commercial Court’s dismissal of its application to strike out Mr Aggrey’s suit.
The applicant had prayed the Court of Appeal to set aside the lower court’s ruling and accordingly strike out the plaintiff’s writ of summons for non-compliance with a section of the new High Court procedure rules but the Court of Appeal dismissed the application and accordingly upheld the Commercial Court’s decision.
Scancom filed another application praying the Commercial Court to stay proceedings in the substantive matter pending the outcome of the appeal but that application was also dismissed.
The Commercial Court in Accra, on October 20, 2006, dismissed a motion filed by Scancom which prayed the court to strike out a writ of summons filed by Mr Aggrey against Scancom and the two other defendants for non-compliance with the High Court’s rules.
The plaintiff sued Investcom, the majority shareholder in Scancom, and Grandview Management Limited when Scancom decided to engage in a merger deal with MTN Incorporated of South Africa.
The deal has, however, been concluded, following the transfer of all shares in Scancom to MTN.
That was after a High Court order on July 14, 2006 which restrained Scancom and other respondents from "continuing, progressing and or concluding the merger with and/or acquisition of Investment Consortium Holdings by MTN Company of South Africa without taking into account and/or providing for the plaintiff's 20 per cent shares in Scancom Limited".
The closure of the acquisition, according to Mr Aggrey, would occasion the loss of his shareholding in the company by reason of the accrual of the rights of the MTN Group as a third party.
Mr Aggrey's contention was that his name had been removed from the shareholders’ list of Scancom without any explanation, adding that the particulars of the directors and shareholders of Scancom obtained from the Registrar General's Department, dated June 2, 2006, and signed by Mr K.A. Ohene-Obeng, a Chief State Attorney, for the Registrar of Companies, showed that Mr Aggrey's name was not included in the shareholders’ list.
It said the onus was on the company to explain how Mr Aggrey ceased to be a shareholder.
In his substantive writ, Mr Aggrey was claiming against the defendants, jointly and severally, an order directed to Scancom to pay him his true dividends declared from the 2000 to 2005 financial years.
He also sought the rectification of the membership of Scancom Ltd to include his name and restore him to his position as a shareholder and director of the company.

GCB to decide fate of Greenland Hotel May 2

April 29, 2008 (Page 3)

THE management of Ghana Commercial Bank (GCB) will, by Friday, May 2, 2008, decide whether or not to open Greenland Hotel Limited which was closed down as a result of its GH¢1.1 million indebtedness to the bank.
Counsel for the bank, Mrs Abena Ntrakwa-Mensah, prayed the Commercial Court in Accra to give her up to Friday, May 2, 2008 to enable her to consult with her client on whether or not it was willing to re-open the hotel while the hotel made arrangements to pay its debt.
This latest development was necessitated by the court’s decision to allow parties in the matter to negotiate, instead of relying on technicalities, following a motion by the management of the hotel praying the court to order the re-opening of the hotel.
The trial judge, Mr Justice S. Marful-Sau, an Appeal Court judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, said the court processes could go on while the management of the bank allowed the hotel to operate.
He said there was no need for the hotel to be closed down because the bank could go ahead and sell it while it (hotel) still operated.
Mr Justice Marful-Sau said the bank could go ahead and put a representative at the hotel to collect money on its behalf while the hotel operated.
He said the livelihood of workers who also had dependants hung on the operations of the hotel and further urged the hotel to make efforts to pay back its loan.
He urged counsel to communicate the court’s views to the management of the bank for it to decide on the next line of action to take.
Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah then informed the court that she needed a short adjournment to communicate the court’s views to her client.
She also urged the hotel to make efforts to pay its debt, adding that a letter from the hotel’s solicitors did not specify when it was going to start making payment.
Counsel for the hotel, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, said the hotel was making huge losses as a result of the closure.
He gave the assurance that it would make efforts to pay its debt.
The Chief Executive Officer of the hotel, Dr Alexander Eyiah, is praying the court for an order setting aside the execution on April 16, 2008 of the judgement entered in default of appearance and for a further order prohibiting the registrar of the court from sealing off, closing down or in any way interfering with the defendant/applicant’s use or possession of Greenland Hotel Limited until a sale by public auction, if any, has been properly carried out on the orders of the court.
The hotel was closed down as a result of the inability of its management to repay the remaining GH¢1.1 million which is part of a loan it took from the GCB.
The GCB took action against the hotel on October 8, 2007 and a judgement dated October 31, 2007 was entered against it in default of appearance.

Monday, April 28, 2008

Closure of Greenland Hotel case ••• GCB counsel angry with Daily Graphic

April 26, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)

TWO lawyers of the Ghana Commercial Bank yesterday took a swipe at the Daily Graphic for allegedly reporting on a case between Greenland Hotel and the bank under the influence of counsel for the hotel.
The scene was at the Accra Commercial Court, presided over by Mr Justice Marful Sau. One of the lawyers, Mrs Abena Ntrakwa-Mensah, stated in open court that counsel for Greenland Hotel had “procured the services” of the Daily Graphic reporter to follow the case.
And to make matters worse, a male colleague of Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah’s whose name the Daily Graphic gathered is Mr Kwadwo Ntrakwa, fuelled the embarrassment of this reporter when he rudely asked her, after the court proceedings, what business she had in reporting a matter which was between two corporate bodies.
According to sources close to the Daily Graphic, Mr Ntrakwa is Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah’s brother.
It all started when Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah said she had seen counsel for Greenland Hotel, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, in a chat with the reporter when she (reporter) entered the courtroom.
That, Mrs Ntrakwa-Yeboah said, was suggestive that Mr Dame had acquired the services of the reporter to publicise the case.
The whole courtroom virtually looked towards the direction of the reporter because counsel had her eyes fixed on where she (reporter) was seated while she (counsel) spoke.
However, Mr Dame quickly rebutted Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah’s claims and said he knew the Daily Graphic reporter as having been reporting from the courts regularly.
He also said the Daily Graphic had published the closure of the hotel in its April 18, 2008 edition and it was, therefore, only fair for the paper to publish the hotel's side of the story.
Mr Justice Sau, an Appeal Court judge who was sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, nevertheless, proceeded to bring the attention of counsel to the substantive issue.
But Mr Ntrakwa was unperturbed after the proceedings when the reporter approached his sister to clarify whether her surname was a compound name or not.
Probably out of ignorance, Mr Ntrakwa, who could not understand why the Daily Graphic should cover the proceedings of a case of public interest, also confronted the reporter and cast aspersions on her.
The substantive case was adjourned to April 28, 2008 to enable the GCB to reply to matters raised by the management of the hotel.
The management of the hotel has filed a motion praying the court to order the re-opening of the hotel, which was closed down as a result of its GH¢1.1 million indebtedness to the GCB.
The Chief Executive Officer of the hotel, Dr Alexander Eyiah, is also praying the court for an order setting aside the unlawful execution on April 16, 2008 of the judgement entered in default of appearance and for a further order prohibiting the registrar of the court from sealing off, closing down or in any way interfering with the defendant/applicant’s use or possession of Greenland Hotel Limited until a sale by public auction, if any, has been properly carried out on the orders of the court.
The hotel was closed down as a result of the inability of its management to repay the remaining GH¢1.1 million which is part of a loan it took from the GCB.
The GCB took action against the hotel on October 8, 2007 and a judgement dated October 31, 2007 was entered against it in default of appearance.
Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah had earlier informed the court that her client was short served and, therefore, she needed enough time to appropriately respond to issues raised by Dr Eyiah.
Mr Dame said there was an urgency to the matter because the hotel had been closed down for more than a week and it was currently incurring heavy losses.
Mr Justice Sau advised parties in the matter to make efforts to negotiate.

Court sanctions repatriation of Liberian refugees (UNPUBLISHED)

April 24, 2008

THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday gave its consent to the planned repatriation of 23 Liberians who have been described as illegal immigrants by the Ghana Immigration Service (GIS).
According to the court, available records from the GIS, the Refugee Board of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Liberian Embassy indicated that none of the 23 Liberians was registered as a refugee.
The presiding judge, Mr Justice P. K. Gyaesayor, said the court was satisfied that the applicants were not refugees and did not qualify to be, adding that “the matter should not be seen as an emotional or gender issue but it should be seen as the law taking its course”.
“The Constitution of the Republic of Ghana is supreme. The removal of the applicants is lawful and does not contravene the laws of the country,” Mr Justice Gyaesayor held.
He further held that the Liberians had neither been granted refugee status nor had justified their continuous stay in the country and for that matter they were illegal immigrants.
It, accordingly, refused go grant an interim injunction which sought to stop their repatriation by the immigration authorities.
“The application to restrain the respondents from repatriating the applicants is refused. The children should accompany their parents,” the court ordered, in apparent reference to the seven minors who were party to the suit.
On April 14, 2008, Nana Oye Lithur, counsel for the 23 Liberians, argued before the court that her clients were refugees who had not been documented by the UNHCR after several requests.
But a Principal State Attorney, Mrs Yvonne Attakorah Obuobisah, had countered the assertion, insisting that the 23 were illegal migrants who posed a security threat to the country.
Giving reasons for the court’s decision, Mr Justice Gyaesayor indicated that the documents the applicants had relied on as belonging to relatives they claimed were refugees proved otherwise.
The court held that the war in Liberia had ended, resulting in the conduct of elections and the subsequent installation of a new President.
It said the war brought about the influx of Liberians into the country and that now that it was over, it was only appropriate that they went back to their country because the refugee status, if any, had come to an end.
It further argued that the applicants had not justified their stay in the country.
It said it was true that the 1992 Constitution guaranteed the right to movement, among other rights, but added that those rights went with responsibilities, in accordance with the law.
According to the court, the detention of the Liberians by the GIS authorities did not violate or contravene the law, adding that under the law, the Director of the GIS had the power to repatriate a person whose stay was seen to be unlawful.
The court also held that persons could be arrested and detained while awaiting repatriation.
It did not award costs.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Case against AMA boss adjourned

April 23, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)

THE contempt case filed against the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Mr Stanley Nii Adjiri-Blankson, by an Accra-based businessman has been adjourned to May 5, 2008.
The case was adjourned to enable the chief executive, who was out of the jurisdiction, to be served.
An Accra-based businessman instituted the action at the Accra Fast Track High Court praying the court to imprison Mr Adjiri-Blankson for contempt of court.
Mr Labib C. Seraphim is also praying the court to impose a heavy fine on the AMA as an entity for refusing to carry out the judgement of the court, two years after it had been ordered to evict hawkers on the Knutsford Avenue in the Central Business District of Accra.
The High Court, on April 10, 2006, ordered the defendants to evict hawkers on the Knutsford Avenue because their occupation was unlawful and hampered the business activities of the plaintiff and other shop owners.
It further restrained the assembly from converting the Knutsford Avenue into a market for hawkers.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice P. K. Gyaesayor, awarded GH¢2,000 costs against the AMA but declined to award damages on the grounds that “the amount to be paid as damages could be used to mobilise resources to carry out the eviction order”.
At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, counsel for Mr Seraphim, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, said bailiffs had on different occasions not been successful in serving the chief executive.
Replying, counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, informed the court that Mr Adjiri-Blankson was out of the jurisdiction.
She said there was no basis for the contempt matter to be put before Mr Justice Victor Ofoe because it was another judge who had passed the judgement which Mr Seraphim claimed had not been obeyed.
Mr Justice Ofoe, who is an Appeal Court judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, advised counsel to make those submissions on a later date after Mr Adjiri-Blankson had been served.
On April 15, 2008, it emerged that the AMA had been served as an entity but there was no record to prove that its chief executive had been served and that prompted the court to adjourn the case to yesterday.
In his application, Mr Seraphim claimed that the AMA had flouted the court’s orders by refusing to evict the hawkers, adding that the hawkers continued to exercise absolute dominion over the Knutsford Avenue, with the active connivance and complicity of the respondents.
“The respondents’ wilful violation of the orders of this court, contained in its judgement, is infringing on the constitutionally guaranteed property rights of myself and other property owners on the Knutsford Avenue,” Mr Seraphim averred.
According to him, the situation was gravely hampering his lawful business activities and those of other property owners.
He further averred that in spite of the court’s clear order for the provision of vehicular accessibility to him and other property owners, there were still in place certain pillars erected by the AMA which should have been removed as part of the process of executing the court order.
According to him, he had, on numerous occasions, through his solicitor, brought the situation to the attention of the AMA but it had refused to remedy the situation.
He said the refusal to carry out the orders of the court was calculated at interfering with and obstructing the due administration of justice and in the event undermine the authority of a court of competent jurisdiction.
Mr Seraphim said the respondents’ blatant display of disregard for the authority of the court made them liable for attachment for contempt of court in order to vindicate the undoubted authority of the court to preserve public confidence in the due process of the law.

Course for non-law graduates soon

April 22, 2008 (Page 31)

THE Ghana School of Law will soon re-introduce a course for non-law graduates, which was scrapped some years back.
Launching the SRC Law Week celebrations of the Ghana School of Law in Accra yesterday, the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, however, did not state the exact date for the re-introduction.
The theme for this year's law week celebration is "Fifty Years of Quality Professional Legal Education: The Changing Phase of Legal Practice".
Mrs Justice Wood said the General Legal Council had in the past made various decisions that included the introduction of the preliminary course for non-law graduates and the professional course for admittance to the Bar but the former was scrapped somewhere along the line.
She said the re-introduction of the course would further provide informed legal education to non-lawyers and for the good of the society.
Mrs Justice Wood appealed to lawyers to endeavour to provide free services to needy Ghanaians who seek their services.
"There is a lingering distrust among lay people about lawyers and the legal profession. One way of redeeming our image is by contributing to the public good," the Chief Justice advised.
Mrs Justice Wood said lawyers must be able to build a culture of public spiritedness.
"The legal profession has among its oldest fraternity great men and women, selfless and dedicated who have fought for and worked hard for the peace and stability of this nation at great cost to their lives," the Chief Justice said.
Mrs Justice Wood also urged the law students to use the training and education they had acquired to help build a just society.
She congratulated the law students on organising an outreach programme for the people of Akuapem South on the theme: "The rights of the child".
Touching on the poor infrastructure base of the Law School, she said it was unfortunate the school's infrastructure had not improved 50 years after its establishment.
She said the school had since 1958 produced more than 4000 lawyers and accordingly urged past students to assist in the development of the school.
Mrs Justice Wood urged past students of the school to position themselves to give back to their alma mater what it needed to plan for the future of the country.
She also appealed to the government and corporate bodies to go to the aid of the school.
The SRC President, Mr Dominic Otchere, urged the government to provide more infrastructure for the school.

Paint was used to mark accident scene • Police officer tells court

April 19, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)

A POLICE officer attached to the Motor Traffic and Transport Unit of the Ghana Police Service told the Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday that the police used paint to mark the accident scene that involved the President.
Answering questions under cross-examination in the case in which Thomas Osei is standing trial for ramming into the President’s vehicle, Sergeant Christian Koda said he was unaware that another police officer had already informed the court that a stone was used to mark the accident spot.
According to Sergeant Christian Koda, who tendered a sketch of the accident that occurred on November 14, 2007, the paint was taken from a painter across the street where the accident occurred.
Osei faces seven counts of use of narcotic drugs, dangerous driving, negligently causing harm, driving under the influence of alcohol, failing to give way to a Presidential convoy and failing to effect change of ownership of vehicle, to which he has pleaded not guilty.
Osei was first arraigned before the Motor Court on November 16, 2007 and remanded.
He was discharged by the court on Thursday, December 20, 2007 after the prosecution had filed a nolle prosequi (unwilling to prosecute) but he was re-arrested when he stepped out of the court and put before the Fast Track High Court.
Mr Akuffo: What do policemen at the MTTU take along when going to work?
Sgt. Koda: We usually take along pencils, notebooks, pens and reflective jackets when we go to work.
Mr Akuffo: Are you painters?
Sgt. Koda: We are not painters.
Mr Akuffo: Is it usual for the police to carry paint while at traffic intersection?
Sgt. Koda: No my Lord. When the accident happened there was a painter around so the police officer there collected paint to mark the scene. That is what my colleague told me.
Mr Akuffo: Did he tell you where he took the paint from?
Sgt. Koda: He did not tell me he took the paint from the painter.
Mr Akuffo: So you concocted he took the paint from the painter?
Sgt. Koda: No my Lord. The officer told me after the accident that he collected paint to mark the scene.
Mr Akuffo: Do you know you are telling the court untruths?
Sgt. Koda: No my Lord.
Cross-examination of the witness continues on April 28, 2008.
The facts of the case were that around 11.30 a.m. on November 14, 2007, Osei drove his Mercedes Benz SE 500 saloon car into the rear side of the President’s vehicle in the inner lane along the Liberation Link from the direction of Aviance towards the 37 Military Hospital, in spite of the fact that other motorists had been stopped to allow the President’s convoy to pass.
The President escaped unhurt.

Court discharges Barclays Boss

April 17, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday discharged the Managing Director of Barclays Bank Limited, Ms Margaret Mwanakatwe, and the Head of Human Resources Business Partner, Ms Laureen Lokko, on contempt charges.
The two were dragged to the court by eight employees, who are executives of the local Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU) of the bank, following their dismissal by the bank, in spite of the fact that they had filed a motion at the court for an injunction against the bank’s decision to summarily dismiss them.
The eight employees are Opare Yeboah, Samuel A. Anarwat, Angela Deku, Esther Asiedu Larbi, Gariba Adam Andan, Edward Boakye, Thomas Benjamin Quainoo and Matthew Kotoku.
Discharging the two, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Victor Ofoe, held that “from the facts of the case, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the respondents are in contempt of court”.
“I, therefore, do not find them liable for contempt and discharge them accordingly,” Mr Justice Ofoe added.
According to the court, the law imposed the duty on the employees to prove the guilt of the two beyond reasonable doubt.
It also held that the employees failed to prove that their salaries had been withheld, as well as prove that they had not received their salaries for January and February.
The court did not award costs against the employees.
The bank is expected to file its response to the substantive case by Monday, April 21, 2008 in order for a date to be fixed for hearing.
At the court’s sitting on March 12, 2008, counsel for the employees, Mr Albert Adaare, said Ms Mwanakatwe and Ms Lokko were in contempt of the court because had prevented the affected workers from going to work, thereby violating provisions in their collective agreement.
He said the respondents had been aware of the contempt application and knew its purpose but went ahead to restrain the applicants from entering their offices.
However, counsel for Ms Mwanakatwe and Ms Lokko, Mr Charles Hayibor, had described the application as misconceived because there was no proof that the employees were either prevented from entering their offices or had not been paid their salaries.
According to him, the employees had been paid their salaries for January and February 2008.
The disagreement between the employees and the bank stemmed from the bank’s decision to dismiss the entire executive of the ICU.
An affidavit deposed by Opare Yeboah on behalf of the rest of the employees in support of the motion for contempt said on the true and proper interpretation of Articles 15 and 16 of the collective agreement between the ICU and the bank, the letters issued to them on January 11, 2008 purportedly dismissing them summarily were illegal and in contravention of the Labour Act, 2003 (ACT 651).
According to the employees, that action was unconstitutional, null and void and ought to be quashed by the court because it was victimisation of the workers who were trade union leaders within the bank.
The employees said on February 8, 2008, they filed an application for interlocutory injunction against the bank, seeking to restrain it from preventing them from entering their offices and continue to carry out their duties and responsibilities as employees of the bank.
They said the said application was served on the bank on February 22, 2008 and that the Managing Director and Human Resources Business Partner were personally aware that the application for injunction was pending.
In spite of their knowledge, the employees said, the respondents wilfully and intentionally disregarded it and treated it with disdain, which was a sacred process of the court.
They said for the month of February 2008, the bank withheld their monthly salaries and paid them pittances which, they said, the bank described as monthly salaries.

Jail Adjiri-Blankson - Businessman prays High Court

April 16, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)

AN Accra-based businessman has instituted an action at the Accra Fast Track High Court praying the court to imprison the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Mr Stanley Nii Adjiri-Blankson, for contempt of court.
Mr Labib C. Seraphim is also praying the court to impose a heavy fine on the AMA as an entity for refusing to carry out the judgement of the court, two years after it had been ordered to evict hawkers on the Knutsford Avenue in the Central Business District of Accra.
The High Court, on April 10, 2006, ordered the defendants to evict hawkers on the Knutsford Avenue because their occupation was unlawful and hampered the business activities of the plaintiff and other shop owners.
It further restrained the assembly from converting the Knutsford Avenue into a market for hawkers.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice P. K. Gyaesayor, awarded GH¢2,000 costs against the AMA but declined to award damages on the grounds that “the amount to be paid as damages could be used to mobilise resources to carry out the eviction order”.
At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, it emerged that the AMA had been served as an entity but there was no record to prove that its chief executive had been served.
Counsel for Mr Seraphim, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, informed the court that his outfit ensured that Mr Adjiri-Blankson was personally served.
That notwithstanding, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Victor Ofoe, adjourned the matter to April 22, 2008 to ensure that Mr Adjiri-Blankson was served.
In his application, Mr Seraphim claimed that the AMA had flouted the court’s orders by refusing to evict the hawkers,
adding that the hawkers continued to exercise absolute dominion over the Knutsford Avenue, with the active connivance and complicity of the respondents.
“The respondents’ wilful violation of the orders of this court, contained in its judgement, is infringing on the constitutionally guaranteed property rights of myself and other property owners on the Knutsford Avenue,” Mr Seraphim averred.
According to him, the situation was gravely hampering his lawful business activities and those of other property owners.
He further averred that in spite of the court’s clear order for the provision of vehicular accessibility to him and other property owners, there were still in place certain pillars erected by the AMA which should have been removed as part of the process of executing the court order.
According to him, he had, on numerous occasions, through his solicitor, brought the situation to the attention of the AMA but it had refused to remedy the situation.
He said the refusal to carry out the orders of the court was calculated at interfering with and obstructing the due administration of justice and in the event undermine the authority of a court of competent jurisdiction.
Mr Seraphim said the respondents’ blatant display of disregard for the authority of the court made them liable for attachment for contempt of court in order to vindicate the undoubted authority of the court to preserve public confidence in the due process of the law.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Court to decide on repatriation of 23 Liberians

April 15, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Accra Fast Track High Court will on April 24, 2008 decide whether or not to order the repatriation of 23 Liberian nationals who have been described as illegal immigrants by the Ghana Immigration Service (GIS).
While counsel for the Liberians, Nana Oye Lithur, argued that her clients were refugees who had not been documented by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) after several requests, a Principal State Attorney, Mrs Yvonne Attakorah Obuobisah, insisted that the 23 were illegal immigrants who posed a security threat to the country.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice P. K. Gyaesayor, fixed the date for ruling on the matter after parties had argued their cases at the court's sitting in Accra yesterday.
The 23 Liberians, who include seven minors, sought an interim injunction from the court on April 8, 2008 to stop their repatriation by the Immigration authorities.
Arguing her case, Nana Oye Lithur denied an assertion from the immigration authorities that the Liberians were illegal immigrants and stated that there were no records to prove they had been granted refugee status or otherwise.
She said the applicants had neither committed any offence nor was there any proof that they posed security threat to the country.
Nana Oye Lithur argued that the Liberians had relatives who had been given refugee status and that automatically affected them as enshrined in the law.
She further argued that it was the duty of the Director of the Ghana Immigration Service (GIS) to check the status of the 23 applicants before deciding to repatriate them. For instance, she stated that 17 of the applicants entered Ghana in 1997, 1999 and 2001 while two entered the country in 1990.
Nana Oye Lithur said she had now been allowed to have access to the 23 "after a long struggle".
Citing authorities, Nana Oye Lithur said the Minister of the Interior and the Director of GIS could not exercise their discretionary powers without following the due process of the law.
She, therefore, described as null and void the March 31, 2008 order that directed that the 23 Liberians should be repatriated and accordingly prayed the court to order the release of her clients from custody forthwith.
Replying, Mrs Obuobisah said there were laws that regulated the stay of refugees within any country and added that the applicants could not claim to be covered by their relatives because those relatives were no longer recognised as refugees.
She said there was currently peace in Liberia and therefore the refugee status of all Liberians ceased in 2003.
Mrs Obuobisah said the order issued by the Director of GIS was for repatriation as was stipulated under the law and explained that other Liberian nationals were currently being repatriated to Liberia.
She said because the applicants were illegal immigrants, they had been put in a detention facility and arrangements had been made to repatriate them until the court ordered otherwise.
The Principal State Attorney said the rights of the Liberians had not been flouted, arguing that the Director of GIS had every right to cause the repatriation of the applicants.
She, therefore, described the motion by the Liberians as unfounded and so the Director of the GIS should be allowed to do her work.
She added that the order for injunction filed by the counsel for the refugees was not properly laid before the court.