By Felix Engsalige Nyaaba
The legal battle between the Advertising Association of
Ghana(AAG) and the Accra Metropolitan
Assembly(AMA) at the Accra Fast Track High Court has on last Friday, February
17, gotten to an end with the AAG withdrawing it case from the court.
The Advertising Association of Ghana (AAG) has
sued the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA) over the fixing of what the
association says are exorbitant rates for billboards for 2010/2011.
However, after several months in the court without any good results, the Association through their counsel filed a motion on notice to discontinue the case with a liberty to apply.
However, after several months in the court without any good results, the Association through their counsel filed a motion on notice to discontinue the case with a liberty to apply.
According to counsel for the Association, the
applicants have not been able to prove services of the court process on the
respondent and therefore decided to discontinue with the case with liberty to
apply.
But the legal counsel for AMA did
not opposed to the motion and asked for cost against AAG for wasting their time
and that of the court.
According to Mr. Edward Sam Crabb,
the applications had caused financial
loses to their client and that the court should award a cost as a punitive against the applicants for
failing to comply with the rules before
bringing his clients to court without any case .
The presiding judge, Mr. Justice N.M
C. Abodakpi granted the motion to discontinue the case and awarded a cost of
GHC2, 000.00 in favour of AMA.
The Advertising Association filed a
writ at the Fast Track High Court through its lawyers, Ankomah Mensah and
Associates asking the court to give an order that, the fixing of rates levied
on billboards and advertising signs by the AMA in Accra, which rates were
published in the gazette notification of April 23, 2010, was unlawful and must,
therefore, be set aside.
It
was also asking for an order of injunction restraining the AMA, its
assigns, workmen, consultants or any person authorized by it from removing, touching
or altering the AAG's billboards or advertising signs till the final
determination of the case.
They further requested the court to order that excessive rates published by the assembly, even if lawful, amounted to an abuse and wrongful exercise of discretion.
The writ said there was established within the industry a convention by which advertising rates were determined from as far back as the 1980s.
It said there was evidence to show that, AMA has radically deviated from consulting with all stakeholders in the industry and has fixed very exorbitant rates for billboards for the year 2010 and 2011, it said.
They content that, the rates are threatening to destroy the livelihoods of plaintiff (the AAG) members and the advertising industry as a whole.
According to AAG, on February 8, 2010, the Parliamentary Committee wrote a letter to the AMA and indicated its decision to mediate between the assembly and the association.
It said in recognition of the need for revenue by the assembly, the AAG agreed to pay fees using the previous year's rates pending the resolution of the rate of increment.
They said, through its members who own outdoor signs or billboards, they complied with and paid the old rates to the defendant pending the arbitration,' it said.
The writ said as a result of the requests, the Parliamentary Committee had started a process of dialogue with the AAG and the AMA.
It further said, while the process was ongoing, the AMA issued warnings directing AAG members to remove their lawfully acquired billboards or risk getting them pulled down.
The AAG said by Section 80 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462), any change or increment in any rate or special rate eligible under the law relating to moveable or immovable property in the metropolis required the consent of the Minister of Local Government.
It said the AMA had, in some cases, increased the special rates on billboards by over 400 per cent, effective 2010, without any consultation with the AAG.
They said, there is evidence to show that the increment in the rates, which was allegedly published in the gazette of April 23, 2010, was without the consent of the Minister of Local Government, as mandated by Section 80 of the act and was, therefore, void.
It further, avers that on January 10, 2009 the ministry, acting by the chief director of the regional co-ordinating council, directed that the new rates fixed by AMA should stop forthwith and ordered that it should strictly comply the directive.
The AAG said as much as the AMA had discretion under the law to set those special rates, 'discretion has to be exercised judiciously and not capriciously'.
They further requested the court to order that excessive rates published by the assembly, even if lawful, amounted to an abuse and wrongful exercise of discretion.
The writ said there was established within the industry a convention by which advertising rates were determined from as far back as the 1980s.
It said there was evidence to show that, AMA has radically deviated from consulting with all stakeholders in the industry and has fixed very exorbitant rates for billboards for the year 2010 and 2011, it said.
They content that, the rates are threatening to destroy the livelihoods of plaintiff (the AAG) members and the advertising industry as a whole.
According to AAG, on February 8, 2010, the Parliamentary Committee wrote a letter to the AMA and indicated its decision to mediate between the assembly and the association.
It said in recognition of the need for revenue by the assembly, the AAG agreed to pay fees using the previous year's rates pending the resolution of the rate of increment.
They said, through its members who own outdoor signs or billboards, they complied with and paid the old rates to the defendant pending the arbitration,' it said.
The writ said as a result of the requests, the Parliamentary Committee had started a process of dialogue with the AAG and the AMA.
It further said, while the process was ongoing, the AMA issued warnings directing AAG members to remove their lawfully acquired billboards or risk getting them pulled down.
The AAG said by Section 80 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462), any change or increment in any rate or special rate eligible under the law relating to moveable or immovable property in the metropolis required the consent of the Minister of Local Government.
It said the AMA had, in some cases, increased the special rates on billboards by over 400 per cent, effective 2010, without any consultation with the AAG.
They said, there is evidence to show that the increment in the rates, which was allegedly published in the gazette of April 23, 2010, was without the consent of the Minister of Local Government, as mandated by Section 80 of the act and was, therefore, void.
It further, avers that on January 10, 2009 the ministry, acting by the chief director of the regional co-ordinating council, directed that the new rates fixed by AMA should stop forthwith and ordered that it should strictly comply the directive.
The AAG said as much as the AMA had discretion under the law to set those special rates, 'discretion has to be exercised judiciously and not capriciously'.
No comments:
Post a Comment