Woyome Wants Case Struck Out

Details

Category: Law Reports

Created on Monday, 26 March 2012 00:00

Hits: 3857

Woyome Wants Case Struck Out

Mr Alfred Agbesi Woyome has filed a motion at the High Court seeking to strike out claims by the state that he fraudulently claimed the GH¢51.2 million paid to him as judgement debt.

According to his new lawyers, Hayibor, Djarbeng, Danso and Co, the Attorney-General (A-G) did not comply with the rules of court when filing the amended writ of summons and amended statement of claim.

Following the granting of leave to the state on February 29, 2012 to amend the writ, the state will now lead further evidence to the effect that Mr Woyome made fraudulent claims to obtain a default judgement for the payment of GH¢51.2 million to him.

Costs of GH¢2,000 were awarded against the state in favour of Mr Woyome because it took the state more than a year to file the amended writ of summons and amended statement of claim.

The number in the original suit, which was filed on July 28, 2010 by the A-G to set aside the default judgement, is OCC/43/2010, the same as that in the defence and counter-claim filed by Mr Woyome on August 8, 2010 and the court ruling on February 29, 2012.

But in the A-G’s amended writ of summons and amended statement of claim filed on March 2, 2012, the suit number was OCC/42/2010.

Based on that anomaly, Mr Woyome’s lawyers contend that since the suit number in the original matter was different, it appeared the A-G had abandoned that suit.

An affidavit in support of the motion filed on March 16, 2012 said following the new suit, Mr Woyome was not a party in the suit served on him and was not warranted by any rule of the court and ought to be struck out.

The affidavit said on March 3, 2012, the lawyers wrote a letter to the registrar of the court for confirmation of the suit number of the case in which Mr Woyome was a party and copied same to the A-G.

According to the affidavit, the registrar, in a letter dated March 14, 2012, confirmed that the case in which Mr Woyome was a party was suit number OCC/43/2010.

“It is obvious that the defendant herein is not a party in the said suit number OCC/42/2010 and, therefore, the amended writ of summons and amended statement of claim served on him are improper service and must be set aside,” it said.

This, in effect, means there has been no amendment in suit number OCC/43/2010, as ordered by the court in its ruling of February 29, 2012, and fact is that since Mr Woyome is not a party to the new suit, the said processes also offend the rules of court in respect of amendment.

According to the Attorney-General’s Department, Woyome obtained the judgement debt through fraudulent means and has, therefore, prayed the court to allow it to amend its writ of summons and statement of claim to include the element of fraud against Woyome.

Among the reliefs contained in the writ filed at the Registry of the Commercial Division of the High Court, Accra, on January 16, 2012 is a declaration that the terms of settlement filed on June 4, 2010, to the effect that Mr Woyome should be paid the sum in three equal instalments of GH¢17,094,495.53, were procured by mistake on the part of the A-G and due to fraudulent misrepresentation by Mr Woyome.

Additionally, the A-G is seeking a declaration to set aside the consent judgement of the court on the grounds that Mr Woyome had no contract with the government and consequently lacked a cause of action and the capacity to make the said claim in any court of competent jurisdiction.

According to the A-G, all the agreements between the Government of Ghana and Vamed/Waterville (Waterville as an assignee of Vamed) were null, void and of no legal effect whatsoever, in accordance with Article 181 (5) of the Constitution, to have grounded any cause of action in Mr Woyome or any claimant pursuant to such a contract.

The A-G is seeking a declaration that all the processes filed and proceedings involving Mr Woyome and the A-G were null and void because Mr Woyome lacked the legal capacity to institute the suit, thereby rendering the consent judgement a nullity for the same reasons.

Source: Daily Graphic/Ghana