Download WordPress Themes, Happy Birthday Wishes

Assin North MP files motion at Supreme Court, accuses Court of Appeal of bias

Embattled Member of Parliament for Assin North Constituency James Gyakye Quayson has filed a motion invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the conduct of the Court of Appeal in Cape Coast over his appeal.

The panel of three on March 22, 2022, struck out his appeal over the applicant’s failure to comply with the processes of initating an appeal.

However, the MP through his lawyers led by Mr Tsikata Tsatsu per the motion, said the court had “no jurisdiction” per the form as of the time of striking out the case.

He also accused the panel of being bias towards him in the manner the case was handled.

In a motion for Certiorari, the MP wants the Supreme Court to quash the ruling of the court of appeal because the applicant’s rights to “natural justice” has been breached.

“It is evident that the proceedings before the Court of Appeal in respect of the Registrar’s certificate were entirely irregular and, in the interest of justice, ought to be declared null and void.

“Furthermore, the ruling of the court in respect of the Registrar’s summons ought to be brought into this Court for the purpose of being quashed by a writ of certiorari.

“It will also be necessary for this Honourable Court to the restoration of all applications which the court dismisse a result of striking out the appeal,” the MP noted.

Below are details of his affidavit in support of the motion

  1. That I am the Solicitor for the Applicant herein and have his authority to depose to this affidavit which is about matters that have come to my knowledge as his counsel.
  2. That I am being led as Counsel by Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata in the proceedings which have been taking place before the Court of Appeal in Cape Coast and in this Supreme Court.
  3. That on 22nd March 2022, I appeared with Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata in the Court of Appeal, Cape Coast where there were a number of matters before the Court in respect of the appeal filed by me on behalf of the Applicant herein at the Court of Appeal against a decision of the High Court against the Applicant herein.
  4. That the first case called was a Registrar’s Summons with a purported certificate of the Registrar said to have been issued and brought before the court under Rule 11(12) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  5. There is in fact no Rule 11(12) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (C. I. 19) as amended by C. I. 25.
  6. The said certificate, on its face, was invalid as not being compliant with the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (C. I. 19) as amended by C. I. 25 having been issued as a process being brought by Michael Ankomah-Nimfah as “PLAINTIFF(S)/PETITIONER” against “1. JAMES GYAKYE QUAYSON2. THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION”.
  7. Hence, when the case was called, Lead Counsel, Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata, drew the attention of the Court to the fact that, given the form in which the certificate had been issued, he did not evenknowhow toannounce himself.
  8. The presiding Judge, upon seeing that the form of the certificate was wrong, immediately announced in open court that what Counsel had drawn attention to was “only a clerical error” when, in fact, the certificate was simply not compliant with Civil Form 11 A in the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Rules, 1999 (C. I. 25).
  9. It was, in fact, clear on the face of the Registrar’s Certificate that the errors pointed out were far from being “only a clerical error” and that the certificate was invalid.
  10. Nonetheless, the Presiding Judge proceeded to summon the Registrar into court to come and effect “corrections” to the obviously invalid document.
  11. This being a certificate issued by the Registrar, once the Court recognized that it was not in proper form, the appropriate course for the court to take was to adjourn matter and have the right certificate issued.
  12. However, the Court held up proceedings and waited until the Registrar came into court, whereupon the Presiding Judge then proceeded to give directions as to the “corrections” to be effected by her handwriting.
  13. Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata further drew the attention of the court to the fact that the purported “corrections”, by way of changing the designation of Michael Ankomah-Nimfah to “Petitioner/Respondent” and the designation of Applicant herein to 1stRespondent/Appellant still did not validate the certificate and suggested that it was necessary to have the certificate properly done.
  14. The Presiding Judge made reference in open court to Rule 31 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (C. I. 19) without any indication of which sub-rule the court was proceeding under to direct the “corrections”.
  15. The said rule 31, which deals with “General Powers of th Court”, in no way validates the conduct of the court and th bare reference to the said rule could not provide a valid basi for the procedure that the court resorted to in purportedl: trying to instruct the Registrar in open court about the form il which the certificate should have been issued.
  16. Indeed, nothing in the said rule 31 or any other of the Cour of Appeal rules gave the court power either to assume the rol of the Registrar to re-issue, in effect, the certificate that hac been invalidly issued by the Registrar, or even more seriously to purport to assume the role of the Rules of Court Committed to determine the form in which the Registrar’s Certificate hac to be issued.
  17. The whole procedure that the Court resorted to in respect of
    the invalid certificate which was before the court was without a lawful basis and gave the distinct impression of the court being in undue haste to reach a pre-determined outcome.
  18. After the Registrar had effected the handwritten changes that the court directed, Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata was then obliged to announce himself as representing the ” 1 st Respondent/Appellant”, as per the direction of the court.
  19. Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata then proceeded to bring to the attention of the Court that there was a motion to disqualify the presiding judge which had been filed in the court and had been fixed for Thursday 24th March 2022 and in the nature of the disqualification that the motion was based on, the proper course was for HerLadyship not to proceed tohear the case.
  20. When Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata sought to explain the nature of the disqualification, the presiding judge stopped him on the ground that that motion was not before the court.
  21. Even when Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata sought to explain why the explanation of the nature of the grounds of disqualification wererelevant to the objection he was raising to the presiding judge adjudicating on the matter, her Ladyship ordered hi not to, indicating that she would not record him.
  22. Herewith attached and marked “Exhibit A” is the me for disqualification which Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata was referring to.
  23. The presiding judge, in preventing Counsel from explaining the nature of the pending motion for disqualification on the basis of which he was objecting to the presiding judge being part of the adjudication on the Registrar’s summons, acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and was unfair and unreasonable, and thus infringing Article 296 (a) and (b) of the 1992 Constitution.
  24. After Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata had raised the objection, the presiding judge indicated that the panel would rise to consider its ruling and the panel rose.
  25. The panel returned to court after their deliberation and gave a ruling not on the objection that Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata had raised but on the certificate of the Registrar. I attach herewith a copy of the said ruling marked “Exhibit B”.

27.No hearing had taken place in the Court of Appeal, Cape Coast, in respect of the Registrar’s certificate and no opportunity was given for the Applicant to show cause why the appeal should not be struck out before their Lordships decide to strike out the appeal.

28.Yet, incredibly and falsely, it was stated in the ruling tha “when Mr. Tsikata was asked to show cause … “. Mr. Tsatsi Tsikata pointed out immediately to the court after the ruling had been delivered that this did not happen. The said ruling striking out the appeal was delivered without jurisdiction as no hearing had taken place in respect of the certificate of the Registrar.

29.The said ruling striking out the appeal was delivered without jurisdiction as no opportunity was given the Applicant, as Appellant, to be heard to show cause why the appeal should not be struck out. Natural justice was denied the Applicant in the proceedings before the Court of Appeal, Cape Coast.

  1. The court acted entirely unreasonably, unfairly and arbitrarily as well as capriciously in flagrant violation of article 296(b) of the 1992 Constitution.
  2. Indeed, the conduct of the case by the presiding judge provided further proof of the grounds for her disqualification that are stated in the motion for her disqualification.
  3. Indeed, both the Registrar, in the issue of the certificate, and the court, in proceeding to strike out the appeal, acted in bad faith, knowing fully well that the court itself had on a number of occasions since November 2021, stayed proceedings in the Court of Appeal based on an application for certiorari that was made to the Supreme Court to quash a ruling of the Court of Appeal on an application to stay proceedings and refer the interpretation of article 94(2)(a) of the Constitution to the Supreme Court and also that there was pending before the court an application for stay of proceedings pending the hearing of an interlocutory appeal.
  4. Counsel for the Applicant would have referred the court these matters if he had been given the opportunity by court to be heard to show cause why the appeal should no struck out.
  5. After striking out the appeal, an application for stay of execution pending appeal that came before the court was “dismissed” by the court, again despite Counsel raising objection to the participation of the presiding judge. Other pending applications of the Applicant before the court were also similarly “dismissed”.
  6. It was striking to me when I heard the ruling of the court that the court proceeded on the basis of a certificate of the Registrar issued on 13th January 2022. What was served on my office was actually a different Registrar’s certificate dated 25th February 2022 to which was attached a Hearing Notice indicating that the case would come on on 22nd March 2022. I hereby attach the said certificate and hearing notice which are marked as “Exhibit C” and “Exhibit C1” respectively.
  7. After service on my office of this certificate, I had it delivered by my clerk to Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata who, upon seeing it, observed that there must have been an earlier certificate because when he was in the Court of Appeal, Cape Coast, on 24th February 2022, a case had been called involving a Registrar’s certificate and he had notified the court that we were not aware of it as we had not been served with the said certificate. He could, therefore, not announce himself. The court, therefore, did not proceed with the matter.
  8. Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata, therefore, realized when he received the Registrar’s certificate dated 25th February 2022 that there must have been an earlier Registrar’s certificate and he instructed me to write to the Registrar for a certified true copy of the earlier certificate. Attached herewith and marked “Exhibit D” is a copy of the letter which I wrote to the Registrar to this effect.
  9. Upon receipt of the certified true copy of the Registrar’s certificate dated 13th January 2022, Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata and I realized that it was issued in the same terms as the one dated 25th February 2022 and was also non-compliant with the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Rules, 1999, (C. I. 25). However, the Registrar had decided, for whatever reason, to discard the earlier certificate and issue the one dated 25th February 2022 which is what was, in fact, the only certificate served on me.
  10. As the Registrar had apparently discarded the earlier certificate dated 13th January 2022, Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata and I were both surprised to realize from the ruling the court delivered on 22nd March 2022 that the court proceeded on the basis of a Registrar’s certificate we had never been served with.
  11. It is evident that the proceedings before the Court of Appeal in respect of the Registrar’s certificate were entirely irregular and, in the interest of justice, ought to be declared null and void.
  12. Furthermore, the ruling of the court in respect of the Registrar’s summons ought to be brought into this Court for the purpose of being quashed by a writ of certiorari.
  13. It will also be necessary for this Honourable Court to the restoration of all applications which the court dismisse a result of striking out the appeal.

About nfm

x

Check Also

Cement firm closed by GSA for using subpar materials; two directors detained

A cement manufacturing company in the Ashanti Region was forced to close its doors due ...