Korle Bu Boss, 5 Others Sued

By William Yaw Owusu

Wednesday July 18, 2007
MORE than 400 health workers including 42 doctors at the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital (KBTH), have sued the Chief Executive of the hospital, Professor Kwabena Frimpong-Boateng and five others for alleged fraud.

The plaintiffs filed the suit at an Accra High Court on May 17, claiming that the defendants have failed to give them plots of land they made contributions to buy from them at Oyibi, near Accra.

But the defendant say the workers’ resort to court action was premature since negotiations between the parties to settle the matter were on-going.

The court, presided over by Justice Lartey Young, has endorsed the effort to settle the matter out of court and has given the parties up to July 27 to inform it of the outcome.

Apart from Prof. Frimpong-Boateng, the suit also cites Dr B.D.R.T. Annan, Director of Medical Affairs, Christopher Nartey, Director of Administration, Emmanuel E.B. Kakabaah, Director of Finance, Alex Arhin, Secretary of Oyibi Land Committee, as well as the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital.

The plaintiffs want an order to compel the defendants to issue them with registered documents covering the plots of land they bought from them and another order to compel the defendants to put the plaintiffs in possession of the land they have paid for.

If these demands cannot be met, the plaintiffs would want a court order compelling the defendants to refund to them all the monies collected from them meant for the purchase of the lands, general damages for fraud, interest on the amount paid, as well as cost.

After waiting for sometime without a response from the defendants, the plaintiffs filed a motion in June for judgements in default of defence but the defendants also filed an affidavit in opposition to that motion for judgement in default of defence.

The defendants argued that upon receipt of the court‘s processes in the substantive case, they entered into negotiations “to settle and resolve the matter.” They said that the negotiations were on-going and it was premature for the plaintiffs to return to court to pursue the matter.

The defendants further said “efforts are being made to have a lease of the said plots of land in the name of the KBTH board to enable them assign their interest to the plaintiffs.” They argued that “the writ of summons and the accompanying statement of claim do not disclose any reasonable cause for action against the hospital since in law, the hospital is not the proper entity to be sued.”

They also argued that the two parties did not agree on any specific schedule for the registered documents covering the plot of land to be issued to the plaintiffs in any agreement for sale of land and to put them in possession of the said lands, adding that they had failed to exhibit it in their affidavit in support of their claim.

“The defendants have not perpetrated any fraud on the plaintiffs. The whole transaction is purely an in-house matter.”

The court, presided over by Justice Lartey Young asked the two parties to make an attempt to settle the matter out-of-court and bring the outcome to the court on July 27.

In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs said the defendants published in the ‘Korle Bu Bulletin’ and on various notice boards an announcement that they (defendants) have secured a large tract of land at Oyibi on the Katamanso road for allocation to members of staff on hire purchase basis.

They claimed they paid ¢8 million per plot and the first deduction which is the deposit fee of ¢1 million was effected through the February 2004. Additional Duty Hours Allowance (ADHA) and the balance of ¢7 million spread over a period of eleven months.

They said the monies were deducted at source to meet the payment of their respective plots and in the process, the price per plot was increased to ¢10 million including additional ¢2 million charged each of the plaintiffs to support administrative and documentation processes.

Plaintiffs said after completion of full payment, the defendants organised batches of field trips to the land to show them their respective plots and some of them were issued with documents which were withdrawn by the defendants because they were found to be fake.

They said after waiting for a while without getting their plots of land, they wrote reminders to the defendants but they received no favourable response and added, “by giving the plaintiffs the impression that the defendants had control, management and ownership of the land which they apparently did not and to which they invited the plaintiffs to make payments, the defendants have willfully defrauded the plaintiffs.

“By organising trips for the plaintiffs to view the land, thus assuring them of the legitimacy of the entire transaction, and failing to fulfill their part of the bargain, the defendants ought to be deemed to have defrauded the plaintiffs.”