The contempt suit against the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA) and its Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Stanley Nii Adjiri Blankson for failing to eject hawkers at the Knustford Avenue in the central business district was on Tuesday adjourned to May 5. This was after Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, counsel for Mr Labib C. Seraphim, owner of Seraphim Department Stores, told the Fast Track High Court that they were finding it difficult to serve Nii Adjiri personally. Mr Dame told the court that bailiffs had been to the AMA on three occasions but did not meet him, hence their inability to serve him. Mrs Selina Fenteng, a Senior Attorney for AMA, told the court that Nii Adjiri had been out of the court’s jurisdiction, hence their inability to serve him. Mrs Fenteng who admitted that AMA had been served told the court that the AMA boss returned home last Sunday. She drew the court’s attention to the fact that the judgment in respect of the substantive case was delivered by Mr Justice P.K. Gyeasayor, a Court of Appeal Judge, hence the motion of contempt should be put before him. The court, presided over by Mr Justice Victor Ofoe said issues raised by AMA would be looked at during its next sitting. Mr Seraphim, a businessman, filed a motion on notice to impose a heavy fine on the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA) and commit its Chief Executive Officer, Stanley Nii Adjiri Blankson, to prison for refusing to evict hawkers from the Knustford Avenue in the Central Business District. He is seeking orders that the AMA and its CEO discharge their obligations by evicting hawkers from Knustford Avenue and provide vehicular access to the stores. On February 28, 2005, the plaintiff commenced action against the AMA and on April 10, 2006, the Fast Track High Court granted the plaintiff all the relief he had sought. The relief included an order compelling AMA to provide vehicular access to the Knustford Avenue and another order restraining the defendants from converting Knustford Avenue into a market. The court, in granting the relief in its judgment, declared that the action of the AMA in converting the Knustford Avenue into a market for hawkers was unlawful and asked the AMA to discharge its obligation of evicting the hawkers. It further asked the AMA to provide vehicular access to Knustford Avenue and restrained the Assembly from ever converting the place into a market for hawkers. The plaintiff said the AMA had for the past two years refused to carry out the orders and that the hawkers continued to exercise “absolute dominion” at the place. "Respondents’ willful violation of the orders of this court contained in its judgment is infringing on the constitutionally guaranteed property rights of myself and other property owners on the Knustford Avenue. “The situation is gravely hampering the lawful business activities of myself and other property owners.” The plaintiff contended that in spite of the orders of the court, AMA had erected pillars, which should have been removed as part of the process of executing the court’s order. Plaintiff said the refusal of the respondents to carry out the orders of the court was calculated at interfering with and obstructing the due administration of justice as well as undermining the authority of the court. Source: GNA