A member of the Ghana Football Association (GFA), Techiman City Football Club, has instituted legal action against the governing body, for what they described as a violation of the GFA Statutes 2019.
A writ of summons issued by the Accra High Court to be served the football governing body enumerated various articles in the Statutes which have been allegedly violated.
A bailiff’s attempts to serve the association was unsuccessful, but he could return on Monday to paste court order notice on the gate of the GFA.
Joy Sports gathers that the bailiff spent close to four hours at the FA secretariat on Friday, August 28, waiting to serve the General Secretary, Prosper Harrison Addo.
However, the FA official is reported to have been in a meeting, and directed that the Human Resource Manager (HR), attend to the visitor – but no one attended to the bailiff.
The legal officer then returned to the court for a notice to place on the gate of the FA next week Monday.
The plaintiff is demanding eight reliefs, asking the court to ‘restrain’ the GFA from organising Congress without the ‘mandatory items’ which they say, is an ‘illegality’.
The court documents available to Joy Sports said, the Executive Council Convocation of Congress ‘is fraught with procedural improprieties and it is in total violation of the Defendant [Statutes] and Company Act’.
Kwabena Boye Adjekumhene of the Kwakwaduo Chambers, acting on behalf of the plaintiff said per ‘Article 15(1)(b), the Members of GFA shall have the right to draw up proposals for inclusion in the Agenda of Congress.
They added that, the GFA Statutes, especially art 15(1)(b) require the Defendant General Secretary to give members of the GFA notice of Meetings of Congress with the right, not the privilege, of all members, to propose items for inclusion in the Agenda for Congress.
The court documents noted that the GFA violated the rights of members, by failing to give them the thirty (30) days notice required to submit proposals for the agenda of Congress.
They argue that the window created did not in itself, meet the time period of notification, but forty-three (43) members submitted proposals which were rejected with the explanation that, proposals have been submitted to FIFA for guidance.
“No part of the Defendant Statutes require that any such proposal should be sent to FIFA for its guidance,” the plaintiff notes.
“The reasons for refusing to include the proposals for amendment on its agenda are inconsistent with the Statutes of the defendant and the rules of the law and equity and that, the rights of members to propose items for inclusion in the agenda for Congress is inalienable and cannot be undermined by the Defendant”.
Without the inclusion of proposals for amendment to the FA Statutes, Defendant cannot hold Congress, documents noted.
Other issues raised by the plaintiff said the GFA violated Companies Act section 157(4), which makes it mandatory for the association to present ‘consolidated and revised balance sheets and the profit and loss accounts by (auditors) and the financial statement of the previous year’.
Should the GFA proceed to organise Congress, the body clothed with powers to appoint an auditor for the association, as captured in the Congress documents as one of the agendas, it would be a ‘violation of section 139 and 141 of the Companies that Act which gives guidelines as to the removal and appointment of auditors since the previous auditors have not been removed.’
Plaintiffs added that only Congress has the powers to approve the budget of the Defendant for the next financial year. Appointment, reappointment, rejection, activity report and other programmes of the FA must be subjected to the powers of Congress before they can be implemented.
It added that, per article 2(h) and 92(1)(2) of the Defendants statutes, they are directed to respect and prevent any infringement of the statute and also respect the rights of members.
‘Defendant’s continued that the indulgence in wanton breaches of its statutes, and provisions of the companies act, would cause irreparable loss to the Plaintiff unless restrained by the Court.’
‘The defendant have the penchant for embarking on the path of illegality unless restrained by this honourable court”
See document below:
Credit: Source link