|
| Wereko-Brobby drags VRA to court |
1/25/2007 |
|
Accra Jan. 24, GNA - Dr Charles Wereko-Brobby, former Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Volta River Authority (VRA) has dragged the authority to an Accra Fast Track High Court following its failure to pay over 2.2 billion cedis as his outstanding entitlements to him.
Dr Wereko-Brobby is claiming interest on the amount from April 2004 to date and at the current prevailing bank rate.
He is also further seeking an order to VRA to transfer to him a Volvo Saloon car with registration number GW 2505 T officially assigned to him.
The court is expected to hear the case on Thursday.
In his Statement of Claim, Dr Wereko-Brobby said he was an energy expert who until his exist at the Authority on September 2003 was the CEO.
Dr Wereko-Brobby had made several demands for his entitlements and the authority notified him of the entitlements with a letter dated on April 1, 2004.
Some of the benefits include: a cash of equivalent of 61,193,560 cedis and 60 pesewas; 43 days earned up leave up to the time of recognition and six months salary in lieu of notice totalling 187,949,999 cdis 98 pesewas.
Others are gratuity of five years salary in the sum of 1,878,500,000 and cedi equivalent of fuel allocation from January to 31st March 2004 in the sum of 2,665,065 and transfer of his officially assigned (Dr Wereko-Brobby)
It noted that authority per its letter on April 1, 2004 agreed to pay 70 per cent of the entitlement by mid April 2004 and the remaining 30 percent would be paid when he vacated their premises on or before May 2004.
"Plaintiff further avers that the delay on the part of defendant, the Authority in paying its entitlement by mid April 2004 as it had undertaken to do so as a condition for plaintiff vacating institutional premises of the defendant. Plaintiff accordingly was unable to vacate the premises on the agreed date," the statement of claim said.
It noted that though the authority delayed in paying the entitlement persisted to 2005, he (Dr Wereko-Brobby) on January 2005 decided to vacate the premises even though he had not been paid his entitlement. "Plaintiff says it now clear that unless compelled by a court of competent jurisdiction so to do, Defendant will not and does not intend to pay Plaintiff what is his due", the statement added.
Source:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
