AMA Boss Files Appeal Against Contempt Case

June 29, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

The Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Mr Alfred Vanderpuije, has filed an appeal against the Accra Fast Track High Court's indictment of his deliberate refusal to accept service of two contempt applications pending against him and another.

Mr Vanderpuije, who was absent in court yesterday, filed another application praying the court to stay the order directed at him to file his defence within seven days until the final determination of his appeal at the Court of Appeal.

Counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, announced the filing of the appeal and stay of execution of the court order when the matter was called yesterday and stated that the motion for stay of execution would be moved on July 6, 2011.

Opposing counsel's plea for an adjournment, counsel for the Advertisers Association of Ghana (AAG), Mr George Ankomah Mensah, prayed the court to issue a bench warrant for Mr Vanderpuije's arrest but the court declined.

The two applications, which were filed on Monday, are yet to be served on the court and the AAG.

The court had, on June 8, 2011, given Mr Vanderpuije seven days to respond to the contempt applications or risk having the case proceed without his defence for deliberately dodging service of the contempt application.

But he has denied any wrongdoing.
In the first contempt application, Mr Vanderpuije and a consultant of the AMA, Mr John Yankah, have been accused of allegedly flouting a court order which directed them not to pull down billboards belonging to the AAG until the final determination of a suit brought against the assembly by the AAG.

In the other application, the two have also been accused of ignoring a motion which challenged Mr Vanderpuije for contravening the Public Procurement Act (PPA) instituted against him by Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited by directing payment of GH¢177,964.57 to Mr Yankah.

Mr Yankah is accused of accepting payments from the AMA at a time a contract awarded to his company by the AMA was being challenged as illegal and contravening the PPA.

The court's ruling was based on the evidence of a bailiff, Mr Boakye Yiadom Baffour, who said the Mr Vanderpuije had refused to accept service of the applications when he (bailiff) went to the AMA office on June 3, 2011 to direct service.

The bailiff informed the court that he went to the AMA offices around 7 a.m. on June 3, 2011 to personally effect service of the application on Mr Vanderpuije, who arrived around 8:05 a.m. but directed the bailiff to give the documents to his (Mr Vanderpuije's) security guard.

According to Mr Baffour, he informed Mr Vanderpuije that because it was a contempt application, he was expected to personally sign for it but Mr Vanderpuije walked out on him while directing Baffour to give the documents to his security guard.

He said the security guard, a police officer, went to Mr Vanderpuije's office with the documents but returned barely a minute later with them, claiming that Mr Vanderpuije said he had just arrived in the office and so the bailiff should wait.

The bailiff, however, declined to wait and left the documents with the police officer.

A motion on notice for interlocutory appeal filed on behalf of the AMA by its counsel expressed dissatisfaction with the Fast Track High Court's decision on the grounds that the trial judge erred in law when he based his ruling on Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of C.I. 47 when it was inappropriate to do so.

Order 7 Rule 3 (2) of C.I. 47 states, 'Where personal service of a document on a person is hindered by violence or threat or other acts of obstruction of that person or any other person with or under that person, it shall be sufficient for the person effecting service to leave it as near that person as may be practicable.'

According to the appellant, the trial judge erred in law when he failed to avert his mind to Order 50 Rule 1 (4) of C. I. 47 and Section 128 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Act 462) which prescribed the procedure for service on the AMA.

The appellant further argued that the ruling of the High Court was against the weight of evidence, adding that additional grounds of appeal would be filed upon receipt of the ruling of the Fast Track High Court, which was presided over by Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei.

An affidavit in support of the motion for stay of execution deposed to on behalf of the AMA by Mr Vanderpuije stated that service was never directed at him personally.

He also denied directing the bailiff to serve him through the bodyguard and accused the court of failing to afford him and the said bodyguard the opportunity to respond to the bailiff's evidence.