Court decides on suit against GETFund,April24

By William Yaw Owusu .

Tuesday, 04 April 2006
A FAST Track High Court in Accra will on April 24, decide whether or not to strike out the name of the Ghana Education Trust Fund (GETFund) Board from a suit brought against it and two others over the awards of a 28-million dollar contract for the supply of school textbooks.

The legal action was instituted by the Ghana Book Publishers Association (GBPA) against the Ministry of Education and Sports (MOES), the Public Procurement Board (PPB) and the GETFund Board.

The GETFund Board is asking the court to strike out its name because it is not a party to the suit.

The GBPA is seeking to restrain the defendants from proceeding with the award of the contract to Macmillan Educational Limited for the supply of textbooks until the final determination of the case.

It is also seeking a declaration that the decision by the first defendant, MOES, to engage in single source procurement for the acquisition of books for schools from Macmillan “is factually and legally unwarranted and violates the provision of the Public Procurement Act 2003, Act 663.”

The association further wants a declaration that the second defendant, Public Procurement Board, erred in law when it granted approval to the MOES to proceed with the single sourcing procurement to purchase the books.

The association is also seeking an order to compel the Ministry to comply with the proper procurement procedure for the intended purchase of the books.

The GETFund Board in its motion for its name to be struck out, argued that the trial could “go on conveniently without my client being joined in the suit.”

Mr Tanko Amadu, counsel for the Board, said there should have been a pre-existing cause for which a relief was sought by the GBPA and added, “going through the reliefs, no other relief has been prayed for except the other one which cannot stand in isolation.

“The only relief for which our name has been included is that of an injunction but under common law, the relief for an injunction cannot stand alone. Governments do not constitute any grounds for which the reliefs being sought for, will hold,” he argued.

Counsel said it was not necessary for his clients to be joined only nominally in a suit where MOES is answerable to its actions.

But Mr Jocob Acquah Sampson, counsel for GBPA in response, argued that the GETFund Board is a statutory trust formed pursuant to Act 581 and kept the funds, part of which is at the centre of controversy.

“It will be dereliction of GETFund Board’s duty not to apply to join this action,” if the GBPA had even failed to make them party to the suit.

He said GETFund’s position was misconceived and a misrepresentation of the true legal point because “there is an ongoing application for procurement and those funds will come from their custody.”

Mr Sampson prayed the court presided over by Mr Justice E. K. Ayebi, to take judicial notice of the fact that the 28 million dollars being sought for, the procurement was lodged with the GETFund Board making the third defendant a necessary party to the action.

He said the GBPA had applied for only an injunction relief against the GETFund Board.