Dr. Opoku Ware Ampomah, the CEO of the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital (KBTH), and two other members of his hospital staff were found guilty of contempt for defying the court about the hiring of a director of finance.
It was claimed that despite an ongoing interlocutory injunction before the court, Dr. Amponsah, the first respondent, Munir Alhassan, the hospital administrator, and Juliana Samuel-Mensah, the head of human resource planning, went ahead and appointed a substantive director of finance.
The Respondents were sued over what the Health Accounting Staff Association of Ghana (1st Applicant) and Lucas Amewudah, acting director of finance, (2nd Applicant), claimed was illegal hiring.
Although the interlocutory injunction was still in effect, the three were stated to have appointed a permanent Director of Finance to succeed the 2nd Applicant, who was said to be serving in an acting capacity.
The Respondents are in Contempt of the Court, Justice Frank Rockson Aboadwe, who was preside over the Contempt Application in the Labour Division of the Accra High Court, ruled in his decision, and he found them guilty.
However, as each was warned and released by the court, the CEO, administrator, and HR Head all avoided receiving a jail sentence.
However, they received a cost of GHC5,000 that had to be paid to the applicants.
“Even though this Court finds the behaviour of the Respondents contemptuous and no justification for their actions, it seems a harsh sentence would not be appropriate taking the circumstances of this case into account,” Justice Aboadwe ruled.
The Court said, “A caution and discharge would be adequate to purge them of their Contempt.
“The Court has taken this lenient and liberal view towards the Respondents, purely because of the fact that the parties herein would have to continue working together for the good of the healthcare of the country. For health it is said is wealth.
“Being guided by the above decision of the apex court of this country and also the statement made by the 3rd Respondent ni paragraph 18 of the affidavit ni opposition, the Respondents are hereby cautioned and discharged.
“The Applicants are awarded cost of GHc5, 000 against the Respondents,” the Court ordered.
Case of the Applicant
The applicants’ contention was that they are in court to put an end to what they believe to be an illegal recruitment process and to compel the respondents to act morally.
The Applicants once more requested an injunction to prevent the Respondents from carrying out this or any other recruitment drive intended to reject the second Applicant (Lucas Amewudah).
The Motion for Interlocutor Injunction was served on the Respondents on April 3, 2023, claim the Applicants.
“Applicants referred to paragraph 3 of their Exhibit ‘C’, which is a copy of the appointment letter the Director of Finance on pre-employment medical examination.
“Therefore, going by the said letter, certain steps remained outstanding at the time the Respondents were served the Injunction application.
“To further buttress the point that the Respondents were served before
the appointment of the Director of Finance, the Applicants exhibited Exhibit ‘D’, which is an affidavit of service of the writ of summons, statement of claim and the injunction application.
“That the Respondents instead of respecting the injunction application have rather undertaken actions that the injunction application seeks to prevent.
“Again that the assumption of duty forms signed for the incoming director was done on the 8th and 9th of May, 2023,” they argued.
The applicants went on to claim that the assumption of duty paperwork had been falsely backdated, and the respondents went on to detail the fraud that they had committed.
Additionally, it was the applicants’ position that the office of the substantive Director of Finance and items was not transferred to the incoming director until April 11, 2023, by 2nd Respondent (Administrator).
“Yet again, that the 1st Respondent (CEO) on the 18th of May, 2023 wrote to the 2nd Applicant asking him to handover.
“That all the stated acts of the respondents were done after they have been servedwith the
Injunction application.
“The Applicants concluded by stating that by the conduct of the Respondents, they have shown complete disrespect and disregard to the court.
“That the actions of the Respondents are deliberate, intentional and calculated to interfere with the administration of justice.
“That if such conduct is allowed, the courts of this country would be brought into disrepute. The applicants therefore prayed for the Respondents to be committed to prison for Contempt of Court,” the Applicants prayed.
Case of Respondents
The Respondents contended that the Applicants issued a writ, statement of claim, and motion for interlocutory injunction against them on April 3, 2023, in opposition to the application.
They claimed that they entered court on April 6, 2023, and that on September 20, 2022, the Respondents posted a job opening for a Director of Finance.
They claimed that on March 15, 2023, the Respondents appointed a Director of Finance as a result of the interview.
The Respondents contend that the recruiting process was complete and the Director of Finance had taken office on March 1, 2023, when the Applicants filed their writ, statement of claim, and motion for injunction on April 3, 2023.
They claimed that they entered court on April 6, 2023, and that on September 20, 2022, the Respondents posted a job opening for a Director of Finance.
They claimed that on March 15, 2023, the Respondents appointed a Director of Finance as a result of the interview.
The Respondents contend that the recruiting process was complete and the Director of Finance had taken office on March 1, 2023, when the Applicants filed their writ, statement of claim, and motion for injunction on April 3, 2023.
They maintained that the third respondent (HR) had to manage the hospital’s affairs at all relevant times to prevent endangering lives and did not intend to disrespect the court’s authority or jurisdiction.
However, the third respondent sincerely regrets whatever offense this court may have taken from her conduct or omissions.
She continued to ask for forgiveness and to be freed of this accusation of disdain.
In their conclusion, they claimed that this application had been filed in bad faith and pleaded with the court to dismiss it as meritless.
Source: Kasapafmonline.com/Murtala Inusah
