Wereko-Brobby vs. VRA: Case adjourned indefinitely

Accra, Feb. 6, GNA - An Accra Fast Track Court on Tuesday adjourned sine die the case in which Dr Charles Wereko-Brobby, Former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Volta River Authority (VRA), has sued the Authority over its alleged refusal to pay him his entitlements. When the matter came up for hearing, Mr Francis Kwame Yeboah, Counsel for the VRA, told the Court presided over by Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie that Dr Wereko-Brobby's Counsel had not replied to his defence application filed more than a week ago.

At the Court's last sitting on January 26, Mr Akoto Ampaw, Counsel for Dr Wereko-Brobby, said he was yet to be served with a copy of the statement of defence.

On Tuesday, however, Mr Ampaw indicated that he had now been served with a copy of the defence application, but he was yet to respond to it. What this means is that after all the processes have been followed by Counsel on both sides, the Court would then fix a date and go into the merits of the matter.

Before proceedings were adjourned for the day, Mr Yeboah said there was the possibility of an out-of-court settlement of the case. Dr Wereko-Brobby says his action against his former employers has been necessitated by their refusal to pay him his entitlements. He has sued VRA over his entitlements amounting to 2.2 billion cedis.

The Energy Expert, who was appointed the Chief Executive Officer of VRA on April 24, 2001 and resigned on September 17, 2003, is claiming interest on his entitlements from April 2004 to the present day. Additionally, Dr Wereko-Brobby is praying the court to order VRA to transfer to him the ownership of a Volvo saloon car that was officially assigned to him during his tenure as CEO.

According to Mr Ampaw it took VRA a considerable length of time before writing to him finally on April 1, 2004 about his separation entitlements.

He said the Authority's delay in the payment of the entitlements to his client persisted into 2005 even when he vacated its premises. Counsel stated that his Client had no other alternative than to resort to legal action against the VRA to compel it to honour its obligation to him.