The Supreme has dismissed the review application filed by the embattled Member of Parliament (MP) for Assin North Constituency James Gyakye Quayson.
The panel of nine presided over by Justice Jones Dotse unanimously dismissed the application on grounds that the applicant (MP) did not meet the threshold for the court to exercise its discretion in his favour.
The MP seeking a review of the restraining orders against him from performing his parliamentary duties after Michael Ankomah Nimfah filed an interlocutory injunction against him which succeeded.
The Apex Court in a 5-2 majority ruling on April 13, 2022, granted an interlocutory injunction filed by Michael Ankomah Nimfah.
However, on April 26, the MP through his lawyers filed a review application.
In court on Tuesday, June 14, the panel Panel chaired by Justice Dotse heard oral arguments from Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata, for the applicant, Lawyer Frank Davies, Respondent Emmanuel Addai for Electoral Commission and Deputy Attorney General Diana Asonaba Dapaah.
According to EIB Network’s Court Correspondent Murtala Inusah, Justice Prof Nii Ashie Kottey and Justice Amadu Tanko were the two new judges added to the Ordinary panel of seven.
The Ordinary panel members are Justices Jones Dotse, Agnes Dordzie, Nene Amegatcher, Mariama Owusu, Gertrude Torkornoo, Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu and Yonny Kulendi
Grounds of application
The review motion is premised on following the grounds:
a. The majority decision was in patent and fundamental error and violated article 129(3) of the Constitution in assuming jurisdiction over the determination of the validity of a Parliamentary election and proceeding to grant the application for an interim injunction.
b. The majority decision was in patent and fundamental error in failing to appreciate that the suit was in reality an attempt to enforce the decisions of the High Court disguised as an invocation of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
c. The majority decision was in patent and fundamental error in granting an order of interlocutory injunction pending the determination of the suit based on a High Court judgment and an earlier High Court interlocutory decision both of which, on their face, violated article 130(2) of the Constitution and, in the case of the judgment, also violated section 20(d) of the Representation of People’s Law, 1992, PNDC Law 284.
d. The majority decision was in patent and fundamental error in granting an order of interlocutory injunction pending the determination of the suit when what the Applicant was seeking by this application was for the execution of decisions in the courts below and this error occasioned a gross miscarriage of justice against the 1st defendant/respondent.
e. The majority decision was in patent and fundamental error in granting an order of interlocutory injunction pending the determination of the suit when the Applicant failed, prima facie, to demonstrate a legal or equitable right that ought to be protected by the court, thereby occasioning a gross miscarriage of justice against the 1st defendant/respondent.
f. The majority decision violated articles 296(a) and (b) of the Constitution in exercising discretion unfairly and unreasonably.
g. The decision to proceed with the hearing of the application for the interim injunction brought under the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules C.I. 47 prior to the preliminary objection raised by the Applicant herein was per incuriam the binding precedents of Koglex v. Attieh [2003-2004] 1 SCGLR 75 and Ampofo v. Samanpa [2003-2004] 2 SCGLR 1155.
Source: Starrfm
