Wereko Brobbey Sues VRA

A FAST Track High Court in Accra will on February 6, commence hearing of a suit filed by Dr. Charles Wereko-Brobby demanding payment of ¢2.2 billion being his entitlements from the Volta River Authority (VRA).

Dr Wereko-Brobby was appointed Chief Executive Officer of the Authority on August 24, 2001. He officially assumed office in September that year but resigned on September 17, 2003.

The court, presided over by Justice Paul Baffoe Bonnie, could not hear the case yesterday because the VRA, the defendants, had just filed their statement of defence.

When the case was called, Mr. Akoto Ampaw, counsel for Dr. Wereko-Brobby, prayed the court to award cost against the VRA for the delay saying the defendants had enough time to file their defence since the filing of the suit was submitted on December 14, last year.

But Francis Kwame Yeboah, counsel for the VRA, said: 'We are not out of time in the sense that there was a vacation period.' Consequently, the judge intervened and the plaintiff waived his right to cost.

Apart from the ¢2.2 billion being sought for, Dr. Wereko-Brobby is asking for an interest from April 2004 and also an order to be issued to the VRA to transfer to him ownership of a Volvo saloon car, GW2505T, which was officially assigned to him when he was appointed Chief Executive of the Authority.

In his statement of claim, Dr. Wereko-Brobby said he got separated from the VRA on September 17, 2003, but it took the Authority a considerable time amid demands from him before they eventually wrote to him on April 1, 2004 to formally notify him of the separation entitlements.

He said in that letter, a cash equivalent of 43 days earned leave up to the time of the resignation, totalling ¢61 million, six months salary in the sum of ¢187 million, gratuity of five years salary of ¢1.8 billion, cedi equivalent of fuel allocation from March 31, 2004, and transfer of ownership of the saloon car which is in his possession were discussed.

The VRA, he further argued in their letter of April 1, 2004, agreed to pay 70 per cent of the entitlements by mid April, 2004 and the rest when he vacated its premises on or before the end of May, the same year.

He contended that because the Authority could not pay the entitlements as agreed on he could also not vacate the premises on the agreed date.

Dr. Wereko-Brobby also averred that the delay in the payment persisted into 2005, when he decided to vacate the premises but the Authority had not honoured its obligation and unless compelled by the court, it will not pay him his entitlements.