Blows over $3.2m Isofoton cash

By Emmanuel Akli.. 
The $3.2 million judgment debt, which was awarded to Accra based businessman, Mr Anane Agyei Forson and his foreign partners, ISOFOTON SA, which was challenged by the former Attorney General, Martin Amidu has now become contentious issue between the businessman and his lawyer – Thaddeus Sory.

Documents available to The Chronicle indicate that Anane Agyei Forson has written a petition to the General Legal Council accusing Mr Sory of trying to hide a judgement delivered by the Supreme Court, which ordered the state of Ghana to pay him and ISOFOTON SA an amount of $USD3.2 million after Martin Amidu failed to convince the court not to award him the cost.

“In the course of the case, I became sick and remained sick for a whole year. Nevertheless, I followed the case and heard through the news media that the matter has been dealt with in court and final judgement delivered on 23rd December 2014 in favour of ISOFOTON and myself. However, every attempt to get Mr. Thaddeus Sory to provide me with a copy of the final judgement has proven futile.

“I have also been prevented from seeing the Chief Justice after several failed attempts to obtain copies of the judgement from the Registrar of the Supreme Court,” Forson alleges in his petition.

Mr Thaddeus Sory has, however, denied the accusation, describing Anane Agyei Forson as someone who has been “afflicted by a quixotic fascination” and that he has never handled any case at the Supreme Court that awarded $3.2 million as judgement to the petitioner.

But despite this explanation, the petitioner still insists that the court has delivered judgement in his favour and that his counsel was trying to hide from him.

The following is Anane Agyei Forson's petition, which was dated May 30, 2016.;

“I wish to bring before you, the matter concerning the pending payment of compensation by the state to ISOFOTON SA, hoping you will use your good office to facilitate the final resolution of all outstanding issues in respect to that.

“I am Anane Agyei Forson, the representative of ISOFOTON SA, the company which brought legal claims against the Republic of Ghana for failing to comply with the terms of a contract between the two. The state settled and agreed to compensate the company for unlawful abrogation of the contract.

“Mr. Martin Almisi Amidu, a private citizen, sued the Attorney General, ISOFOTON and myself, challenging the legal basis for the settlement agreement the State entered into with ISOFOTON SA.

“He contended that ISOFOTON's contract with the State did not go through parliament and therefore not a valid contract, the abrogation of which should give rise to judgment debt payment to ISOFOTON.

“The Supreme Court should as such render the original contract null and void and stop the Republic of Ghana from paying any compensation to ISOFOTON.

“ISOFOTON did not agree with Mr. Martin Alamisi Amidu's argument and as attorney and Local representation of ISOFOTON I hired the legal services of Sory@Law to defend our interest. The appeal, I believe, resulted in a judgement awarding USD3.2 Million.

“In the course of the case I became sick and remained sick for a whole year. Nevertheless, I followed the case and heard through the news media that the matter has been dealt with in court and final “judgement delivered on 23rd December 2014 in favour of ISOFOTON and myself. However, every attempt to get Mr. Thaddeus Sory to provide me with a copy of the final judgement has proven futile. I have also been prevented from seeing the Chief Justice after several failed attempts to obtain copies of the judgement from the Registrar of the Supreme Court.

“I find the conducts of Mr. Sory and the Supreme Court Registrar very disappointing, to say the least. I am pleading with you to use your good office to help me in resolving this matter. It is my hope that you are able to contact the Chief Justice to ascertain the outcome of the case, especially since her Ladyship happened to have chaired the panel that sat on this particular case. Thank you for the gift of your attention.”

In a letter dated July 11, 2016 and addressed to the General Legal Council Thaddeus Sory also wrote:

RE: COMPLAINT OF ANANE FORSON AGAINST LAWYER THADDEUS SORY

1.0 I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated the 8th day of July, 2016 on the above subject.

2.0 I say right from the outset that neither ISOFOTON nor Mr. Anane Agyei Forson engaged me personally or the law office in which I work (SORY @ LAW) to recover any money from the state for him (Mr. Anane Agyei Forson) or ISOFOTON.

3.0 Mr. Anane Agyei Forson engaged my office (SORY @ LAW) to defend ISOFOTON and himself in respect of a suit brought by the Attorney-General against ISOFOTON to recover the sums paid to ISOFOTON by the state after the Supreme Court had held in Writ No JI/23/2012 dated the 21st day of June 2013 (reported in (2013-2014) I SCGLR 167) that the state recover from ISOFOTON the sum of three hundred and twenty five thousand, four hundred and seventy two United State Dollars ($325,472.00).

4.0 At all times material to the time when Mr. Anane Agyei Forson engaged our office, therefore, monies had already been paid to Mr. Anane Agyei Forson by the state. I did not know when those monies were paid and I was never privy to the circumstances under which the monies sought to be recovered were paid to ISOFOTON.

5.0 Accordingly, it is hereby emphasized that in the case in which the Supreme Court held in Writ No J1/23/2012 dated the 21st day of June 2013 (reported in (2013-2014) 1 SCGLR 167) that the state recover from ISOFOTON the sum of three hundred and twenty five thousand, four hundred and seventy two United State Dollars (325,472.00) neither SORY @ LAW nor myself personally was involved in the conduct of the case.

6.0 The Supreme Court having ordered that the monies paid to ISOFOTON be recovered from ISOFOTON by the state, Mr. Anane Agyei then engaged our office to defend the suit which was initiated in the High Court. The High Court gave judgment in favour of the state for the recovery of the money from ISOFOTON the result being that we successfully invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to quash the judgment, which case is reported as Republic v High Court (Fast Track Division) Accra; Ex Parte Forson (Attorney-General-Interested Party) reported in (2013-2014) 1 SCGLR 690.

7.0 Having successfully conducted the case about which I have explained at paragraph 6.0 above, Mr. Anane Agyei Forson then approached us (SORY @ LAW) to prosecute on behalf of ISOFOTON a review application brought by the Honourable Martin Amidu praying the Supreme Court to review its decision in Writ No J1/23/212 dated the 21st day of June 2013 (reported in (2013-2014) 1 SCGLR 167).

8.0 The review application was successfully argued by our late Carl Adongo the judgment of which is reported as; Amidu (No 4) v Attorney-General, ISOFOTON SA & Forson (No 2) in the (2013-2014) 1 SCGLR 662.

9.0 I am therefore not aware of any case in which judgment