Judge unhappy with absence of AMA boss

Thursday, July 7, 2011 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday expressed its dissatisfaction at the absence of the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Mr Alfred Vanderpuije, who, together with another person, has been cited for contempt in two different contempt applications.
According to the trial judge, Mr Justice Peter Dei-Offei, although the court’s clerk had informed him (judge) that Mr Vanderpuije was in the court earlier before leaving for an official assignment, it was unacceptable for him to be absent.
He reminded counsel for the AMA that the contempt application was a quasi-criminal matter for which reason he directed Mr Vanderpuije to be personally present in court until the matter was determined.
Counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, took note of the judge’s position and explained that Mr Vanderpuije did not act out of disrespect for the court.
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 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 Mr Vanderpuije for contravening the Public Procurement Act (PPA) instituted against him by Lead Advertising (Gh) Limited by directing the 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.
Meanwhile, Mr 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 Mr Yankah.
He also filed another application praying the court to stay its June 8, 2011 order directed at him to file his defence within seven days until the final determination of his appeal at the Court of Appeal.
At the court’s hearing in Accra yesterday, it emerged that the AAG was short served with Mr Vanderpuije’s application and ,for that reason, filed its affidavit in opposition yesterday morning.
Following the new development, the court adjourned the matter to July 15, 2011 to enable the AAG to serve the AMA with its affidavit in opposition.
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.
The court’s ruling was based on the evidence of a bailiff, Mr Boakye Yiadom Baffour, who said 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.
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.
Mr Vanderpuije 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.