Your order to respond to interlocutory injunction is ‘manifestly in error’ – Assin North MP tells SC

Embattled Member of Parliament (MP) for the Assin North Constituency James Gyakye Quayson has described orders by the Supreme Court for him to respond to an interlocutory injunction seeking to stop hon from performing his parliamentary duties as being “manifestly in error.”

According to the MP, the Supreme Court has “no jurisdiction to hear the case on March 16” based on its orders on March 8.

The hearing of the injunction filed by Michael Ankomah Nimfah, a private citizen against the MP from performing his parliamentary duties was on Wednesday, March 16, blocked.

Lawyers of the MP led by Tsatsu Tsikata filed two motions – a Review application against the court’s ruling on March 8 and a Stay of Proceedings.

In his affidavit in support of the case for a review of the 6-1 decision of the apex court, he argued that, by virtue of Rules 48, 50, and 53 of the Supreme Court Rules, C.I. 16, the court cannot take away his right to file a statement of case within fourteen days from the date of service of the plaintiff’s statement of case.

In a 24-paragraphed affidavit in support of the motion filed at the Supreme, he contended that, “the order for a hearing on the 16th March 2022 was arbitrary, unreasonable and not compliant with due process of law under Article 296 of the Constitution and the Honourable Court lacked the jurisdiction to make such an order.”

He argued that, “the first ruling of the court was to the effect that, despite the failure of the Plaintiff/Respondent to publish the various processes in the Daily Graphic as ordered by the Court, service through the other means was sufficient service.

“That this ruling is also in error and undermines clear orders of the court when it granted substituted service, especially the order of service through a daily newspaper, which the court itself added. Counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent conceded that there had been non-compliance with the orders of the court.

“That, as the Plaintiff/Respondent did not seek a variation of the order of the court in respect of the said mode of service, the court on 8th March 2022 had no jurisdiction to make such a variation as it effectively did.

“That in making this ruling, the court made reference to a letter I had writtentotheRegistrar of the Supreme Court asking to be supplied with certified true copies of proceedings before the court on 22 February 2022.

“The said letter, dated 28th February 2022, was written after I had seen the publication in the Daily Graphic of 25th February 2022 with a hearing notice that stated that the hearing was to be on 5th March 2022, a Saturday.

“The said letter was not about obtaining the processes that were to be filed by substituted service and I did not, in fact, obtain those processes from the Registrar.

“That, furthermore, as Mr. Tsikata also stated in court on 8th March 2022, the hearing notice that I was served with on Thursday, 3rd March 2022, did not have any other court process served with it.

“That the said hearing notice, issued at the instance of the Counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent, was issued without jurisdiction having regard to Rules 48, 50 and 53 of the Supreme Court Rules, C.I.16.

“That my letter to the Registrar of the Supreme Court asking to be supplied with certified true copies of proceedings before the court on 2 February 2022 could not be a reason for the Plaintiff/Respondent complying with the court order as regards the newspaper publication.”

He has also filed a motion for Stay of Proceedings pending the determination of the Review application.

The cases would be heard on March 29.