|
Plaintiff wants AMA boss jailed for refusing to evict
hawkers
Accra, April 15, Ghanadot/GNA - A
businessman has filed a motion on notice to impose a heavy
fine on the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA) and commit its
Chief Executive Officer, Stanley Nii Adjiri Blankson to
prison for refusing to evict hawkers from the Knustford
Avenue in the Central Business District.
Mr Labib C. Seraphim, owner of Seraphim Department Stores,
is seeking orders that the AMA and its CEO discharge their
obligations by evicting hawkers from Knustford Avenue and
provide vehicular access to the stores.
Before Mr. Godfred Yeboah Dame, counsel for the plaintiff,
could move the motion, the Court presided over Mr Justice
Victor Ofoe, a Court Appeal judge, noted that Mr. Blankson
had not been served.
"There is no proof of service, the proper thing should be
done," the court said.
The case was therefore adjourned to April 22.
On February 28, 2005, plaintiff commenced action against the
AMA and on April 10, 2006, the Fast Track High Court granted
the plaintiff all the relief he had sought.
The relief included an order compelling AMA to provide
vehicular access to the Knustford Avenue and another order
restraining the defendants from converting Knustford Avenue
into a market.
The court, in granting the relief in its judgment declared
that the action of the AMA in converting the Knustford
Avenue into a market for hawkers was unlawful and asked the
AMA to discharge its obligation of evicting the hawkers.
It further asked the AMA to provide vehicular access to
Knustford Avenue and restrained the Assembly from ever
converting the place into a market for hawkers.
The plaintiff said the AMA had for the past two years
refused to carry out the orders and that the hawkers
continued to exercise “absolute dominion” at the place.
"Respondents’ willful violation of the orders of this court
contained in its judgment is infringing on the
constitutionally guaranteed property rights of myself and
other property owners on the Knustford Avenue.
“The situation is gravely hampering the lawful business
activities of myself and other property owners.”
The plaintiff contended that in spite of the orders of the
court, AMA had erected pillars, which should have been
removed as part of the process of executing the court’s
order.
"A huge and deep ditch has also been dug in front of my
property and has been uncovered for well over one year now.
I have on numerous occasions through my solicitors brought
the situation to the attention of the respondents but they
have refused to (cover) it," plaintiff said.
Plaintiff said the refusal of the respondents to carry out
the orders of the court was calculated at interfering with
and obstructing the due administration of justice as well as
undermining the authority of the court.
GNA
|
