You are here: HomeNews2008 12 18Article 154783

General News of Thursday, 18 December 2008

Source: GNA

Court gives ultimatum to former CEO of Korle Bu

Accra, Dec. 18, GNA - An Accra High Court on Thursday, ordered the former Chief Executive Officer of the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital, Professor Kwabena Frimpong-Boateng and five others to issue within two months, registered documents on parcels of land acquired at Oyibi for 445 personnel of the hospital.

The court presided over by Mr Justice Lartey-Young in his judgement, further asked the defendants to put the plaintiffs in possession of the land.

Plaintiffs, who had not completed payment, should pay their arrears before documents on the land are handed over to them, the court ordered. "If the defendants fail to provide land documents on the land, they were to make refund to plaintiffs," he said. According to the court because the defendants did not make any profit from the transaction they were not to pay any interest on the money. It dismissed the elements of fraud associated with the transaction. The court awarded cost of GH¢100 each to the plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs last year sent Professor Frimpong-Boateng and five others to court in connection with an alleged fraudulent transaction over parcels of land at Oyibi, near Accra.

They were to answer questions over registered documents covering plots of land they had bought in 2004 for plaintiffs, including doctors, nurses, and laboratory technicians at Oyibi. The plaintiffs were seeking an order compelling the defendants to possess the land for which they had paid GH¢1,000 each. Alternatively, they were seeking an order of the court compelling defendants to refund monies collected from them, general damages for fraud, interest on their monies as well as cost.

The other defendants were Dr B.D.R.T. Annan, Director of Medical Affairs, Mr Christopher Nartey, Director of Administration, Mr Emmanuel E.B. Annan Kakabaah, Director of Finance, Mr Alex Arhin, Secretary to Oyibi Land Committee and the Hospital.

When the suit commenced, the defendants did not file any defence hence plaintiffs filed a motion for judgement in default of defence. The defendants, however, filed an affidavit in opposition to the motion for judgement in default of defence, saying they were taken by surprise with the turn of events because some leaders of the plaintiffs had entered into negotiations to resolve the matter. The defendants said they "had not perpetuated any fraud on the plaintiffs" adding that the whole transaction was purely an in-house matter.

The High Court therefore adjourned the case to July 27, 2007 to enable the plaintiffs and defendants to attempt an out-of-court settlement. However, an out-of-court settlement did not yield any results, hence the trial.

In their statement of claim, plaintiffs say in 2004, defendants published in their in-house magazine, "Korle Bu Bulletin" and on various notices boards that they had secured a large tract of land at Oyibi on the Katamanso Road on hire purchase.

Plaintiffs said the said notices requested that they paid GH¢800 per plot and the first deduction, which was the deposit fee of GHC 100 would be effected through their February 2004 Additional Duty Hours allowance (ADHA) while the difference GH¢ 700 was spread over a period of eleven months.

According to plaintiffs, they expressed interest and monies were deducted for the payment of their respective plots. The plaintiffs said later the price per plot was increased to GH¢ 100, including an additional GH¢200 fee charged to support administrative and documentation processes. Plaintiffs said they had all completed payment for their respective plots.

The Plaintiffs said for them to believe in the integrity of the transaction, the defendants organised a group trip to the land ostensibly to show them their respective plots. They said the defendants issued out documents to some of the plaintiffs but they were found to be fake and were withdrawn. They said they were neither given their documents nor the land, although they had written reminders to the defendants. Plaintiffs therefore contended that the defendants had defrauded them.