Sole Commissioner directs petitioner to go to court
The Sole Commissioner of the Judgement Debt Commission, Mr Justice Yaw Appau, on Wednesday directed a petitioner who brought a case pending at the Accra High Court to the commission to rather pursue it at the court.
The petitioner, Mr Prince John Baidoo, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Megrey Construction, petitioned the commission on the failure of the Ghana Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) to pay in full for work done by his company. Contract
According to Mr Baidoo, Megrey Construction was awarded a contract worth GH¢174,239.40 by the GCAA in 2003 for the landscaping of the frontage of the Kotoka International Airport.
He said although the construction company encountered numerous problems during the course of the project, it managed to complete it and hand it over to the GCAA.
He said the GCAA, however, paid GH¢39,300 and had since failed to pay the remainder as promised.
Mr Baidoo said Mr Paul Boateng, who was given a sub-contract by Megrey Construction to provide black soil for the project, sued the company for non-payment at the High Court which led to the garnishee of the account of the GCAA by which Mr Boateng succeeded in getting his money plus interest.
He said the GCAA, nevertheless, failed to pay Megrey Construction its oustanding balance, which now stood at more than GH¢2.8 million, including interest calculated from 2005 to date. High Court
However, Counsel for the GCAA, Mr Akoto Ampaw, informed the commission that the case was already pending at the Accra High Court.
Mr Justice Appau, therefore, directed Mr Baidoo to follow the case in court as the commission could not hear it.
Mr Baidoo told the commission that Mr Justice Asiedu, who first sat on the case, advised that the case be followed at Mr Justice Ofori Atta’s Court, since it was similar to that of Mr Boateng.
Since Mr Baidoo failed to prove to the commission the application for consolidation and its order, except to say it was an oral declaration from Mr Justice Asiedu, Justice Appau did not accept his explanation, explaining that the case by Boateng was completely different and Megrey could, therefore, not rely on that.
He, consequently, advised Mr Baidoo to continue the case at the court where he first filed the writ summon. — GNA
This article has 0 comment, leave your comment.