Case against PURC shot down

August 21, 2013 (Page 44)

 The Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday dismissed a writ issued against the Public Utilities Regulatory Commission (PURC) by the Truth and Accountability Forum (TAF) over tariff adjustments.
Dismissing the action, the court, presided over by Mr Justice N. M. C. Abodakpi, held that the TAF lacked
 the legal capacity to commence and pursue an action against the PURC.
Describing the suit as being without merit, the court, accordingly, upheld the PURC’s motion for the court to strike out the action for being “frivolous, vexatious and abuse of the court’s process”.
Costs of GH¢1,000 were awarded against the group in favour of the PURC.
The group has indicated that it will appeal against the court’s decision.
The TAF hauled the PURC to court on June 20, 2013 and urged the court to declare that having failed to provide guidelines for the fixing of rates to be charged, the PURC could not go ahead to fix new rates for utility companies.
It had also prayed the court to declare as illegal the failure of the PURC to publish in the Gazette and the mass media approved rates, as well as perpetually restrain the PURC from approving new rates without providing guidelines for the fixing of rates.
 But the PURC, on July 26, 2013, filed a motion on notice and prayed the court to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the group lacked capacity.
It also urged the court to dismiss the statement of claim of the TAF as being unmeritorious, frivolous and an abuse of the court’s process.
An affidavit deposed to on behalf of the PURC by its Executive Secretary, Mr Samuel Sarpong, stated that although the plaintiff, in its statement of claim, indicated that it was registered under the laws of Ghana and acted as a watchdog to protect members of the public, searches conducted at the Registrar-General’s Department revealed otherwise.
According to the affidavit, the searches, dated July 15, 2013 and July 25, 2013, revealed that “the said entity does not exist in law by the said name and address stated on the writ, neither is it authorised to do business in consonance with that stated on the statement of claim”.