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.