The Supreme Court will on April 5 this year rule on a review application challenging its decision that the National Democratic Congress (NDC) Member of Parliament (MP) for Assin North, James Gyakye Quayson, has been duly served with a writ seeking to stop him from holding himself as a legislator.
Mr Quayson is seeking a review of the decision of the court on March 8, which paved the way for the court to hear the injunction application against him.
It is his case that the orders of the court with regard to a substituted service were not fully complied with.
A nine-member review panel of the apex court fixed the date Tuesday after hearing arguments from counsel for Mr Quayson, Tsatsu Tsikata, and the counsel for Michael Ankomah-Nimfah, the plaintiff who filed the writ, Frank Davies.
When the case was called Tuesday, Mr Tsikata was expected to move the motion for review, but he rather informed the court that his client had filed a different motion seeking permission from the court to file supplementary statement of case to support the review.
Counsel said the motion was filed yesterday morning.
He apologised for the late filling but urged the court to consider it on the basis that it was germane and crucial to the case of his client.
In response, Mr Davies urged the court not to consider the motion, arguing that it was a delay tactic and the modus operandi of Mr Tsikata.
“We are getting used to this style. On the day of his own application, counsel files new applications,” he argued.
The court, however, granted the motion for leave and adopted the supplementary statement of case as part of the review application.
Mr Tsikata was then called by the court to move the review application.
Counsel, however, urged the court to adjourn the case to afford him more time to study the affidavit in opposition to the review filed by the plaintiff.
That was unanimously refused by the court which insisted that Mr Tsikata move the review motion.
Moving the application for review, Mr Tsikata argued that the ordinary bench of the court committed grave errors which had occasioned a miscarriage of justice
when it ruled that his client had been duly served with the order for substituted service.
According to counsel, the court expressly ordered that all the court processes filed by the plaintiff should be published in the Daily Graphic, but the publication was
only in respect of the order for substituted service by the court and the hearing notice.
“Non-compliance of the court’s own order renders the decision a nullity,” he submitted Mr Davies, however, disagreed with Mr Tsikata and contended that the review motion did not meet the criteria for review as stipulated by the rules of court.
According to him, there were no exceptional circumstances or discovery of new evidence to warrant a review.