Contempt case against AMA boss - Bailiff summoned before court

June 8, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday directed its registrar to summon a bailiff before it today for it to determine whether or not the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Dr Alfred Vanderpuije, had been served with two contempt applications pending against him and another.
In the first contempt application, Dr 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 Advertisers Association of Ghana (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 Dr 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 also a defendant in the second contempt application which accused him 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 Fast Track High Court which is hearing both applications directed the registrar to summon the bailiff to testify as to whether or not he had served the respondents following a claim by counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, that the AMA had not been served with both applications.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei, said the records before him indicated that the AMA had been served.
Ms Fenteng then prayed the court to summon the bailiff to come and explain where and on whom he had served the documents.
Following the development, the court adjourned proceedings to today.
In the substantive suit, the AAG sued the AMA over the fixing of what the association termed exorbitant rates for billboards for 2010 and 2011 and in the course of the trial the court directed both parties not to take any steps to prejudice the outcome of the case until the final determination of the suit.
An application for contempt filed on behalf of the AAG by its lawyer, Mr George Ankomah Mensah, said the respondents had flouted the court’s order by vandalising billboards belonging to its clients.
Counsel also accused the AMA of bypassing the AAG and, in the process, threatening its clients that it (AMA) would pull down their billboards if they did not pay the new rates.
The new rates, according to the AAG, were between 400 and 750 per cent increment over previous ones.
Mr Mensah further argued that he had pictures to authenticate his claims but the court drew his attention to the fact that the contempt application was currently not before the trial judge.
The AMA has denied the AAG's claims and advised the AAG to follow the due process of the law and file the necessary papers if it was of the view that the AMA had been in contempt of court.
Meanwhile, the court has granted leave to the AAG to serve the AMA with an application which sets out questions on whether or not the AMA was served with notice of intention before it was sued by the AAG.
The court gave the AMA 14 days to respond to the questions to pave the way for a a mini trial on June 21, 2011 to determine the veracity or otherwise of claims by the AMA that it was not served with notice of intention before it was sued.
The AMA claimed 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 notice of intent 30 days before filing the suit, but the AAG disputed the AMA’s claims and insisted it had served the assembly.
At its sitting on May 12, 2011, the trial judge intimated that following the claims from both parties, there was the need for the court to conduct a mini trial to resolve the issue of whether or not the AMA had been served with the notice of intent.
Evidence will be taken from witnesses to enable the court to arrive at the truth in the mini trial, which is mostly held in camera.
In the Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited suit against the AMA and Via Afrinity Ghana Limited, a company run by Mr Yankah, the applicant is praying the court to declare that a contract dated December 12, 2009 and titled "Supply of Services Agreement" between the AMA and Via Afrinity Limited was a public procurement service and must, therefore, conform to all requirements laid down in the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663).
It said the court should also declare that a sole or single sourcing procedure adopted by the AMA in executing the contract without the permission of the Minister of Finance amounted to a violation of the mandatory provision of the PPA.
The applicant is also praying the court to declare as null and void the entire contract on the grounds that it violated Section 35 of the PPA, as well as perpetually restrain Via Afrinity Ghana Limited from exercising any functions or duties conferred by the said contract.
Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited is imploring the court to order Via Afrinity Ghana Limited to refund any or all moneys or payments made to it from public or any funds as a result of the said contract, as well as any other cost the court might deem fit.