An Accra-based business development consultant has sued GCC Resorts Limited, owners of Kempinski Hotel, for what he says is unlawful termination of his appointment as a director of the company.
According to the plaintiff, Mr Akumba Benedict Asamoaning, the termination of his appointment was without regard to due process.
He is, therefore, praying the Accra High Court to declare it null and void.
The plaintiff is also praying the court to order the defendant to pay GHC2 million as fees owed him for providing services other than a director of GCC Resorts Limited.
A statement of claim accompanying the writ of summons said Mr Asamoaning was duly appointed as a director of the company and his appointment was communicated to him in a letter dated March 20, 2009.
“In the course of carrying out his duties as a director, the plaintiff executed various documents and was involved in various transactions,” the statement said.
According to statement, in the course of carrying out his duty as a director of the company, he was also asked to provide some services at a fee.
These included initiating media campaigns and negotiating with the leadership of squatters who had occupied the site for the hotel at that time, but he was never paid, despite carrying out all those duties.
It added that having benefitted from these services, the defendant company was liable to pay him for the provision of those services and the failure to pay him for his services amounted to unjust enrichment.
The statement said as a director of the company, the plaintiff duly executed the responsibilities required of him until he recently received information that he was no longer a director of the company.
“With a view to confirming the information received, the plaintiff made enquiries at the Registrar-General’s Department and discovered that, as per the department’s records and from documents recently filed by the defendant company, in particular a Form C dated January 4, 2016, details of its directors do not include his details,” the statement said.
It said the failure of the defendant company to include his details as a director in returns and other filings done at the Registrar-General’s Department meant that his position as a director had been terminated by the defendant.
“No explanation or in the alternative, satisfactory explanation has been offered plaintiff regarding the termination of his directorship,” the statement added.