GHC51.2 M JUDGMENT DEBT CASE, WOYOME APPEALS AGAINST RULING ON AG'S MOTION

By Felix Engsalige Nyaaba

Mr. Alfred Agbesi Woyome, the embattled businessman who is facing the law suit brought by the Attorney General at the  Accra Commercial High Court has filed an appeal against the court ruling which granted the  Attorney  General leave to file its amended statement of claim in the controversial GHC51.2 million judgement debt payment saga.

The appeal which has been fixed for hearing on April 18, at the Court of Appeal was made known to the Commercial Court yesterday when the case was called for hearing

According to Mr. Robertson Kpatsa, lead counsel for Woyome, the defence was not satisfied with the decision of the High Court ruling dated February 29, 2012 that allowed the state to file its amended writ and statement of claimed, saying the ruling was a departure of the ordinary rules of the Court procedures and therefore want the Appeal court to quash it outright.

He further said, the defence has also filed a motion on notice for stay of proceeding at the Commercial Court pending the final determination of the appeal.

The defence said, although they were not opposed to the allegation of fraud made against Woyome by the state, that could not permit the state (plaintiff) to file for other reliefs which had already been settled by a consent judgement and that such reliefs granted by the trial judge was indeed an error of justice and must be held null and void by the appeal court.

It said, apart from the fraud element allegation in the amended writ and statement of case, anything the plaintiff (AG) added in the case was in an attempt to re-open the case afresh.

The defence argued that,  per the consent judgment in which the  plaintiff  was made to pay the  defendant  an amount of GHC51.2 million on installments  had there and then resolved the  case and that the plaintiff  could not re-open same for trial.

In response to the defence, a Chief State Attorney, Ms Dorothy Afriyie Ansah, said the state was not opposed to the appeal as well as to the motion to stay proceeding at the High Court.

She however, notified the court that, the state was yet to receive a copy of the defence amended statement of defence and counterclaim as been directed by the court.

But Mr. Robert Kpatsa said, until the court of appeal determined the appeal application, the defence would not file any response to the plaintiff amended writ and statement of case.

He told the court that the outcome of the appeal would inform the defence next line of action and prayed the court to adjourn the case sine-die.

However, after listening to both parties, the trial judge, Mrs. Justice Barbara Ackah-Yensu said, the court would decline to adjourn the case sine-die but would rather give a long date to enable the defence pursue it appeal.

She therefore adjourned the case till April 24, this year by which the defence would have finish up with its appeal and inform the court of it outcome.

At the last sitting day, the court slapped a cost of GHC500.00, against the Attorney General for failing to commence trial on the matter after several adjournments.

Mr. Woyome obtained a consent judgement against the state in 2010 and was paid a colossal amount of GHC51.2 million for breached of contract between his agents and the state over the rehabilitation of some stadia’s following the CAN 2008 tournaments in Ghana.

But after a public outcry about the amount involved, the Attorney General filed a writ and amended statement to reclaim the GHC51.2 million paid to Mr. Woyome.

According to  the Attorney General, further investigations has revealed that, there were legal trails off  on the contract leading to a consent judgment against the state and that the GHC51.2 million paid to Woyome  between 2010 and 2011, was illegal.

The state in its application therefore prayed for an order that, the contract that alleged to have entered between the defendant and the government of Ghana was an international transaction per Article 181(5) of the 1992 constitution and ought to have gone through parliament for approval.

It also wants an order of the court that, the consent judgment entered in July 2010 which led the respondent to be paid GHC51.2 million was obtained through fraudulent means and therefore do not have legal binding on the state and should be held as null and void with no legal effect.

The state further prayed the court to as a matter of law, nullified the contract between the respondent, the Waterville Company Limited and the State which led to the payment of the judgment debt as null and void, for it has not pass through parliament for approval and therefore has no legal effect.