Court Slams GHC 5,000 Cost Against Vodafone

By Stephen Kwabena Effah
December 10, 2011

The Accra Commercial Court has slapped a GH 5,000 cost against Vodafone Ghana for bringing “unmeritorious” application to stay proceedings in the case in which the government has been sued for offloading 70 percent of its shares in Ghana Telecom to Vodafone International.

According to the court presided over by Justice Mrs. Gertrude Torkornoo, the application filed by lawyers for Vodafone Ghana on December 6, was “without basis”, and consequently dismissed it.

It thus went ahead to give Vodafone up to December 16, to file its amended statement of defence, and December 22 for the plaintiffs, the Attorney General and Vodafone to file new issues of trial following the filing of an amended statement of case by the plaintiffs.

The action was initiated at the Commercial Court in October 2008 by Professor Agyemang Badu Akosa, Michael Kosi Dedey, Dr Nii Moi Thompson, Naa Kordai Assimeh, Ms Rhodaline Imoru Ayarna and Mr Kwame Jantuah, all members of the Convention People’s Party, in their capacity as citizens.

They are contending that the Sale and Purchase Agreement entered into among the Government of Ghana, GT and Vodafone for the sale of 70 per cent of GT for 900 million dollar was against the public interest and constituted an abuse of the discretionary powers of the government.

Vodafone Ghana filed the application to stay proceedings in the trial to enable it appeal against the court’s decision of November 1, to the effect that it would take material evidence aside the legal arguments.

In February 2009, the court differently constituted asked the parties in the to submit to it legal arguments for it to decide on the case, but the court which is now presided over by Mrs. Torkornoo ruled otherwise when lawyers for Vodafone drew her attention to the earlier order.

According to Mr. Festus Kayi, they were not satisfied with the decision of the court and thus filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal to contest it.

Further, he argued that an aspect of the case is still pending before the Supreme Court and until that has been dealt with the lower court cannot proceed to hear the matter, saying “this court cannot hear the case until the constitutional questions have been addressed”.

The lower court differently constituted referred three cardinal constitutional questions to the Supreme Court on November 23, 2009 for interpretation but the Supreme Court in early last year declined to hear the case since it said it was premature.

The court held that the relevant materials needed to determine the three issues were not available, for which reason it sent the case back to the Commercial Court for those materials to be provided before going into the matter.

But Mr. Kayi argued yesterday that those relevant materials requested by the Supreme Court had since been submitted to the court, copies of which have been provided the plaintiffs. According to the court, it was yet to receive those documents.

“The Supreme Court now have enough materials to decide the questions….the matter is ripe to be before the Supreme Court,” he noted, and therefore urged the court to stay its proceedings.

Dismissing the application, the court held that pleadings in the case have not even been closed, in view of the amended statement of case filed by the plaintiffs. The case has since been adjourned to January 12.

According to the plaintiff, the decision of the government to transfer the assets, properties, shares, equipment, among others, to Vodafone was obnoxious, unlawful and inimical to the public interest, particularly when no consideration was required to be paid by Vodafone for the stated assets.

The group argued that the three Ministers of State and the managing director of GT who signed the agreement on behalf of the government did not exercise the requisite level of circumspection required of them as public officers in relation to public property.

The plaintiffs are, therefore, seeking reliefs from the court, including a declaration that the agreement entered into by the government was not in accordance with the due process of law and was, therefore, a nullity.

They are also demanding that the court should give an order declaring that the forcible grouping of autonomous state institutions established by law — Voltacom, Fibreco, VRA Fibre Network and VRA Fibre Assets — with GT to form the purported Enlarged GT Group was unlawful and, therefore, void and of no legal effect.

The plaintiffs are further praying for an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the government from disposing of its 70 per cent share of GT to Vodafone or any other foreign company without first exploring avenues for funding and better management in Ghana.