A sensational ?180 billion damages awarded against WAHOME Steel Ltd by an Accra High Court has halted a last minute rescue effort by SSNIT to revive the Tema-based steel company which is already smarting under threats of liquidation.
SSNIT, which has pumped about ?50 billion into the company, are considering ways of throwing a life-line to the company, which has stopped production.
About 99% of the workers have been asked to proceed on leave by management of WAHOME Ltd due to financial difficulties.
Court documents indicate that the ruling is in respect of a ?14 million suit instituted against WAHOME Ltd, by Rockshell International, a general construction company with a chequered history, which was blacklisted by the then PNDC government from undertaking or executing any government contract 15 years ago.
A contract awarded to Rockshell International by the government in respect of the Keta Sea Defence project was terminated, while the company's quarrying license was also revoked simultaneously.
Following these events about 15 years ago, Tei Rockshell, owner of Rockshell International, abandoned the company's plant and equipment in a bush at Lawlawvor in the Greater Accra region for over 10 years.
The Shai Traditional Council, custodians of the land on which the equipment had been abandoned for several years, invited WAHOME Steel Ltd to remove them for scrap. WAHOME Ltd, who was also in need of materials due to the financial problems they were facing, embraced the invitation and gas-cut 10 tons of scrap materials.
due to the financial problems they were facing, embraced the invitation and gas-cut 10 tons of scrap materials.
The site where the scrap were removed was so weedy that it took the Shai Traditional council three days to clear the weeds to access the scrap.
On June 11, 2001, Rocshell International walked out of a quiet High Court 9 having been awarded ?18 million (?180 billion) in damages by His Lordship Nana Gyamera Tawiah.
Observers in court that day, told Chronicle that they thought Gyamera Tawiah wanted to mention ?18 million and not ?18 million. It all started on June 22, 1995.
A man wielding a gun emerged from nowhere and fired gun shots into vehicles and workers of WAHOME Ltd who were busy cutting the scrap.
The unknown man later appeared in court as a witness.
He gave his name as Ras Seth Djangmah Tei, Managing Director of Rockshell International.
He told the court that his company used to hire out the equipment to contractors for given periods after their contracts were terminated and their license revoked..
Ras Djangmah continued that on one occasion a request was made by a company (he did not name the company) for the hire of part of the mining equipment so it became necessary to send the hirer to the site in the bush where the equipment had been abandoned.
He said to his surprise he met a number of persons loading 'some" of his company's equipment onto parked trucks.
The witness for the plaintiffs added that when the people saw him they took to their heels while some of the trucks attempted to move away, but he managed to stop them by firing to deflate their tyres and got them arrested.
Ras Djangmah said he noticed the premises where the equipment were kept had been razed down by fire and that upon further inspection he noticed that all the company's equipment stored there had been destroyed by oxygen torch which he claimed had rendered them useless.
It emerged in court that the site was so weedy that it took the chiefs and the people three days to clear.
Witness continued that he arrested the people and dragged them to the Police Headquarters where he lodged a complaint, following which one Vandyke and other persons were charged with stealing and dishonestly receiving. Mr. Vandyke was the head of the scrap department of WAHOME Ltd.
The accused persons were convicted and sentenced.
On November 13, 1996, the management of Rockshell International acting through their solicitor, Peter Ala Adjetey, began a civil action against WAHOME Ltd claiming ?14 million for causing damage to their property.
According to a writ issued by Peter Ala Adjetey on 13 November 1996, the Plaintiff was claiming "The delivery or return or the replacement value of their building at Lawlawvor, Greater Accra region together with its content of spare parts, furniture, stores, quarrying, mining and construction equipment."
In the statement of claim, the plaintiff admitted that the government terminated the contract concerning the Keta Sea Defence project and prohibited them "from undertaking or executing any government projects whatsoever ".
The reasons for the blacklisting of the company from undertaking or executing any government contract was not given.
The Plaintiff continued that in consequence of the abrogation of the contract they removed all their plant and equipment which they claimed had been imported for the purposes of the contract from Metrsi Kassa in the Volta region to the Plaintiffs quarry site at Lawlawvor in the Greater Accra region.
But in their statement of defence, counsel for WAHOME contended that their client did not appoint any agents to set the place on fire adding that the Shai Traditional Council, who invited them to the site made it accessible to them.
They contended that if any fire was ever set then the Shai Traditional Council should be held responsible.
The defendants contended that they removed only 10 tonnes of scrap materials and not the tall list of items being demanded by the Plaintiff.
Counsel for the defendant said that they were invited to the site by the Shai Traditional Council and Nene Okuampah Korabo IV and so if someone is to be held responsible for any losses that have occasioned plaintiff's action the Council and Nene Okuampah Korabo IV are liable.
Defence Witness, Thomas Kwah Debrah, a gas-cutter at WAHOME Ltd, told the court that WAHOME Ltd, sent him and his senior, Mr. Vandyke and one Paul Ackah and a driver to Lawlawvor to cut scrap.
He said upon reaching Lawlawvor, Mr. Vandyke introduced Nene Okuampah Korabo to them as the owner of the scrap, adding that after the introduction Nene Okuampah showed them the items that were to be cut.
He continued that the items shown to them by Nene Okuampah were three tractor trailers and a scrapper machine.
The Defence Witness further told the court that during the first three days that they went to Lawlawvor , they were unable to engage in their main task of cutting scrap because it took that long for the area to be cleared.
The Defence witness admitted spotting a conveyor belt and a crusher some distance from where they removed the scrap.
He however denied either burning any building on the site or cutting any item other than those shown them by the chief.
He also denied that anyone arrested them or attempted to do so or that anyone sent them to the police station.
Unfortunately, the second witness for the defendant, was the late Kojo Ampadu Essah, a solicitor secretary of the Minerals Commission .
He could not complete his evidence-in-Chief before he passed away.
The submission by Counsel for Defendants Mr. Fui Tsikata , with all force that the court should not expunge the evidence of the late Mr. Essah was over ruled by the presiding judge, Gyamera Tawiah.
"I beg to disagree with him. I wonder how an unfinished testimony which could not be subjected to cross examination could be admitted into evidence to be made part of proceedings"
He said.His Lordship Nana Gyamera Tawiah in his judgement said that even though he did not know whether Nene Okuampah was alive, he was aware that the Shai Traditional Council is still in existence and added that Defendants never called representatives of the Council to testify on their behalf.
He also noted that Defendants did not apply to have the Shai Traditional Council joined in the suit, adding that in his opinion if whatever defendants allegedly did was at the instance of the Council and Nene Okuampah, then they should have taken steps to have them appear in court to testify on their behalf or have them co-joined in the suit.
He added that maybe their evidence might have absolved defendants from liability.
Nana Gyamera Tawiah concluded that the replacement value of the plant and equipment is ?14,543,991.37.
He then allowed only 10% depreciation on the equipment which had been in the bush for over 10 years.
He also awarded the plaintiff 5% interest on the depreciated amount and backdated it to June 22, 1995.
On top of the pile he awarded the plaintiff, ?30million costs.
