The Supreme Court has dismissed the injunction application brought by the Member of Parliament for the North Dayi Constituency, Hon. Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor against the vetting and approval of nominee ministers of the President.

The Supreme Court Presided by the learned Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo held that the application brought by the lawyer and Honourable Member of Parliament was frivolous and an abuse of the Court's process.

The Supreme Court bench was constituted by the Chief Justice, Justices Owusu, Amadu, Koomson and Asare. The defendants who are the Speaker of Parliament and the learned Attorney General were represented by Godfred Yeboah Dame with the Deputy Attorney General, Diana Asonaba Dapaah, with Thaddeus Sory and Nuhela Seidu representing the Speaker of Parliament.

Rejection of Service

Lawyers for Hon. Dafeamekpor, Messrs Addo Addo, led by the learned Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo rejected the service of the hearing notice for the application for injunction. The Bench got the news of the rejection after both Mr. Dafeamekpor and his lawyers failed to show up in Court. The Chief Justice asked lawyers for parties to announce themselves. Lawyers for the defendants announced themselves but there was no one representing the applicant Member of Parliament. The Chief Justice amazed at the absence of Counsel asked the Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court if the applicant and his lawyers were served. He informed the Chief Justice that an attempt was made to serve them but the Secretary at the Chambers of the firm said Mr. Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo instructed her not to receive the hearing notice.

Amazed by this news, the Chief Justice announced to the court that the matter will be stood down for the bailiff to appear to answer to the court if service was effected. The matter was accordingly stood down for another matter to be called and heard. The bailiff came to the chamber of the court and was ushered to the witness stand after the court completed business in the case it called when the hearing of the injunction application was stood down. The bailiff was thus sworn in and interrogated on the events that occurred in serving lawyers for Mr. Dafeamekpor the hearing notice of their own injunction application.

Bailiff in witness stand

The Chief Justice told the bailiff to read the affidavit of proof of service to the hearing of the court. The bailiff accordingly did. After reading of the affidavit of proof of service, the bailiff, Ben Nii Joshua, told the court he attempted serving lawyers for Mr. Dafeamekpor at their chambers but the secretary who he named as Naa said she could not receive the hearing notice as she had been instructed by Mr. Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo not to receive the hearing notice.

The Chief Justice invited lawyers for the State and the Speaker if they had any questions for the bailiff which they answered in the negative. Mr. Sory indicated to the court that they have been served with the notice and an application for amendment of the injunction application.

The learned Attorney General upon an invitation from the court for a response to the evidence provided on the service of the hearing notice on lawyers for Mr. Dafeamekpor said that lawyer for Mr. Dafeamekpor consciously rejected service. He said the application for injunction was before the court and should be determined despite the rejection of the hearing notice.

https://www.tiktok.com/@thelawplatform/video/7337323152269200646?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7239416459838375429

Dame condemns Nii Kpakpo

The learned and respected Attorney General (A.G) who appeared scandalized by the conduct of his learned friend did not spare the opportunity to criticise his conduct of causing his chamber secretary to reject the service of the hearing notice. He minced no words. He said the instructions issued by Mr. Nii Kpakpo Addo amounts to professional misconduct as a lawyer and a disrespect to the court.

The AG thus invited the Bench to issue directives for dealing with the said conduct of Mr. Nii Kpakpo Addo and assert its authority against the conduct of his learned friend.

Further Questions from the Bench

The Learned President of the Bench turned to her brethren and sister and invited questions from them to the bailiff who stood still in the witness box waiting for further questions. Justice Amadu took the first bite of the Cherry. In a rather calm demeanour, His Lordship asked the bailiff what he did upon the rejection by the secretary to reception of the hearing notice. To murmurs form the court, the bailiff responded that he left it on the desk of the secretary and left the premises of the chambers.

Justice Koomson followed up on the question by Justice Amadu and inquired if the act of leaving the notice on the desk of the secretary amounted to service. The bailiff was clear in his mind that it did as he answered in the affirmative.

The Court discharged the bailiff and turned its attention now to the bar inviting Mr. Sory and Mr. Dame for any indication. Mr. Sory who confessed to the court that he could not hold a firm view if service was effected per rules of procedure and practice as the bailiff initially did not say whether or not he left the hearing notice with the secretary at Addo and Addo chambers, but given his answer to Justice Amadu Tanko that he left the hearing notice despite the rejection of same, service was effectively done.

Hearing of application in absentia

The Court in the voice of the Chief Justice intimated its decision to proceed with the hearing of the application. The court reached the view after it rose for some minutes after it had discharged the witness and heard reactions of counsel for parties to the testimony of the bailiff.

The court disclosed that the applicant MP had filed an application to amend the injunction application and after satisfying itself of service of the application on the defendants, it struck out the application for amendment on grounds of duplicity.

The Bench invited submissions from counsel on the injunction application. Mr. Sory registered his opposition to the application relying on the case of Welford Quarcoo v Attorney General. Mr. Sory was clear in his mind that the work of Parliament could not be brought to a halt by virtue of the application. The Attorney -General who was also opposed to the application said among others that the application was frivolous as the reliefs sought by the applicant in his substantive suit was answered by the Supreme Court in the J.H Mensah v Attorney General case.

Ruling

Relying on the Welford Quarcoo and James Gyakye cases, the Supreme Court dismissed the injunction application citing the application to be an abuse of Court process and frivolous. The learned Attorney General requested that Mr. Dafeamekpor be ordered to pay a cost of GHc50,000 for filing an application and refusing to show up in court. The Bench in the voice of Amadu JSC in turning down the request of the AG said that the matter was a constitutional matter and as such, cost will not apply.

The Chief Justice said she wished cost was able to be handed down on plaintiffs owing to the failure of Mr. Dafeamekpor and his lawyer to show up in Court. Per Her Ladyship, parties file processes in court and fail to follow up.

https://www.tiktok.com/@thelawplatform/video/7332054263377562885?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7239416459838375429