Court cautions AMA, Advertisers

April 21, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday cautioned the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA) and the Advertisers Association of Ghana (AAG) not to prejudice a suit over the fixing of what the association termed exorbitant rates for billboards for 2010 and 2011 which the AAG had brought against the AMA.
According to the AAG, the AMA had, in some cases, increased the special rates on billboards by more than 400 per cent, effective 2010, without any consultation with the AAG.
The AAG said the rates, which were published in a gazette notification of April 23, 2010, were 'adversely affecting the business' of advertisers, were unlawful and must therefore be set aside.
At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, the presiding judge, Mr Justice Dennis Adjei, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, also directed the AMA to serve the AAG with a supplementary affidavit it filed to support its claim that the AAG failed to comply with Section 127 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462), which required the AAG to serve the AMA with a notice of intent 30 days before filing the suit.
However, the AAG disputed the AMA’s claims and further argued that it had not been served with the defendant’s supplementary affidavit, which prompted the court to direct the AMA to serve the AAG.
The court, on March 28, 2011, restrained the AMA from going ahead with its planned demolition of billboards belonging to the AAG until the final determination of the suit.
A writ filed on behalf of the AAG by Ankomah Mensah and Associates, legal practitioners, on behalf the AAG was praying the court to also give an order of injunction restraining the AMA from removing, touching or altering the AAG's billboards or advertising signs until the final determination of the case.
It further requested the court to order that excessive rates published by the assembly, even if lawful, amounted to an abuse and wrongful exercise of discretion.
The writ said there was within the industry a convention established as far back as the 1980s by which advertising rates were determined.
That, it said, involved discussions between the association and the AMA before advertising rates were set.
“The plaintiff will show that the defendant (the AMA) has radically deviated from this norm of consulting with all stakeholders in the industry and has fixed very exorbitant rates for billboards for the year 2010 and 2011,” it said.
According to the statement, the rates were threatening to destroy the livelihoods of plaintiff’s members and the advertising industry as a whole.
It said the AAG had written several petitions against the rates so fixed by the AMA and also petitioned the office of the Greater Accra Regional Co-ordinating Council (RCC), as well as the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Local Government and Rural Development.
According to the statement, on February 8, 2010, the Parliamentary Committee wrote a letter to the AMA and indicated its decision to mediate between the assembly and the association.
It said in recognition of the need for revenue generation by the assembly, the AAG agreed to pay fees using the previous year's rates pending the resolution of the rate of increment.
“The plaintiff has, through its members who own outdoor signs or billboards, complied with and paid the old rates to the defendant pending the arbitration,” it said.
However, it said, before the Parliamentary Committee’s process to resolve the impasse between the AAG and the AMA, the AMA issued warnings directing AAG members to remove their lawfully acquired billboards or risk getting them pulled down.
The statement said by Section 80 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462), any change or increment in any rate or special rate eligible under the law relating to moveable or immovable property in the metropolis required the consent of the Minister of Local Government.
It further argued that the plaintiff would lead evidence to show that the increment in the rates, which was allegedly published in the gazette of April 23, 2010, was without the consent of the Minister of Local Government, as mandated by Section 80 of the act and was therefore void among others.