<<Print>>

The Commercial Division of the Kumasi High Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Emmanuel Ankamah, last week Tuesday, had no option than to adjourn the hearing of a legal suit brought against the Ghana Highways Authority (GHA) further to May 22, 2015.

Lack of communication between the counsels of the parties was cited as the reason for the adjournment.
Mr. Douglas Carl Botweh, alias Nana Douglas, the plaintiff, is demanding payment of compensation from the GHA for the demolition of properties on two building plots affected by a rehabilitation programme by the roads institution.
On March 27, 2015, the court directed that the plaintiff submit proposals of his claims for consideration by the defendant GHA. The plaintiff obliged and has submitted the proposals since March 31, 2015.

On the next adjourned date on April 16, 2015, Mr. Joseph Atsu Amedzake, Ashanti Regional Director of the Ghana Highways Authority (GHA), represented GHA in court.

Lawyer Thomas George Quarcoo, representing defendant GHA, was not in court. As a result, the court further adjourned sitting to May 5, 2015, to enable the GHA to respond to the proposals of the plaintiff, but neither counsel for the GHA, or a representative, was in court on May 5.

The case had to be adjourned to May 22, 2015, because counsel for the GHA again did not make any appearance in court on May 13, 2015. The GHA, however, was represented by the Regional Administration Officer, Mr. Emmanuel Asina.

The plaintiff, per the statement of claim filed by his lawyer, J. Osei Kofi of Kumasi, said in 2006, the Government of Ghana decided to rehabilitate the Kumasi-Konongo road, which exercise was supervised by the defendant state agency, the GHA.

As  a result of the said rehabilitation, two of his properties on plot 1A and Plot 9B Block F respectively, and situated at Oduom, were affected and consequently demolished, for which he hired a private valuer to do a valuation of the properties.
The plaintiff stated that Plot 1A Oduom was valued at GH¢50,000, while property Plot 9B Block F was valued at GH¢13,800, and valuation reports submitted to the defendant for payment.

He stated, however, that even before the valuation was done the defendant paid an amount of GH¢5,964.30, as part-payment of the compensation due him in respect of Plot 1A, which payment was duly receipted.

According to the plaintiff, the defendant had since the submission of the valuation reports made several demands, but the defendant agency has failed to honour its promises, hence the action by the plaintiff, who sees the conduct of the defendant as  unlawful.