<<Print>>The plaintiff in the suit brought against the striking doctors of the Ghana Medical Association (GMA) has stated that he is no longer interested in perusing the case.
According to Oliver Atsu Abada, lawyer for the plaintiff – Listowell Nana Kusi Poku – his client had filed a notice to withdraw the matter before the court.
The move follows the suspension of the three-week strike by the doctors on Monday, August 24, 2015. They had been demanding conditions of service.
Earlier, the doctors had refused to yield to pressure to resume work and go back to the negotiation table as they stuck to their roadmap, which among other things, could have seen them resigning en masse.
Unsatisfied with the position of the doctors, Nana Kusi Poku, General Secretary of the United Front Party (UFP), sued the GMA, hoping the court would declare the strike as illegal and order the doctors to return to work.
Yesterday, at the hearing of the case at an Accra high court presided over by Justice Barbara Tetteh-Charway, the plaintiff’s lawyer indicated their intention to drop the case because the doctors had already called off their strike.
Cost
Garry Nimako Marfo and Dr Justice Rufus Yankson, appearing for the doctors, urged the court to award a GH¢50,000 cost against Kusi Poku.
Mr. Nimako Marfo argued that the action by the plaintiff had “caused the GMA undue expenses,” adding that if the court failed to do so anybody could get up and sue at will.
In the view of the lawyer, a cost against Kusi Poku was necessary because the plaintiff did not bring the action against the GMA in the public interest, but in his capacity as the General Secretary of the UFP, which is a political party.
Busy Body
While describing Kusi Poku as a “busy body” who wadded into a purely industrial case between the GMA and the government, Mr. Nimako Marfo stated that the plaintiff did not deserve any of the reliefs he was seeking from the court.
He maintained that the suit against the GMA was not in the public interest, insisting, “When you withdraw a case, cost must be paid.”
Mr. Atsu Abada in a quick rebuttal, contended that his client was not a ‘busy body,’ adding that he (client) acted in the public interest.
The UFP General Secretary’s lawyer said there was no need for a cost to be awarded against Kusi Poku because what they were seeking (suspension of the strike) had been granted.
Ruling
Justice Tetteh-Charway accordingly struck out the case and said the trial, which was of public interest, had been over-taken by events and as such, was unable to award any cost against the plaintiff.
Justice Tetteh-Charway further explained that the court, in view of the withdrawal of the suit, did not go into the merits of the case.