Woyome to file response to suit
The Supreme Court yesterday granted leave to counsel for Alfred Agbesi Woyome to file a response to a suit brought by one Abdulai Yusif Fanash Muhammed, a businessman, asking the court to set aside its earlier decision that ordered Mr Woyome to refund sums of money paid him to the state.
Advertisement
The suit names the Attorney-General (A-G), Woyome and Mr Martin Amidu as defendants.
The court, presided over by Justice Yaw Apau, arrived at the decision after Mr Ken Anku, counsel for Woyome, had satisfied the court that he could not file the response within the stipulated period because he had been indisposed and had been granted a 14-day sick leave.
Earlier, Mr Amidu had opposed the move by Woyome’s lawyer to file a response when the stipulated period had elapsed, saying that Woyome’s lawyer should have given an indication that he was going to file a defence, and “not only a defence but a reasonable one”, within time.
Evidence
But Mr Justice Apau, in granting leave to Mr Anku, said Mr Anku had provided evidence from the 37 Military Hospital indicating that he had fallen sick and been given a 14-day sick leave.
On the reasonableness of the defence as indicated by Mr Amidu, Mr Justice Apau said that would be determined when it was filed and subsequently adjourned the case to February 4, 2016.
In the substantive case, Mr Muhammed claims that the review decision of the Supreme Court that ordered Woyome to refund the money to the state was given in excess of the jurisdiction of the court and was, therefore, in violation of the Constitution and the Courts Act.
Lack of jurisdiction
It is the contention of Mr Muhammed that the review court did not have the jurisdiction to give the judgement and the consequential orders that were made.
“It is the submission of the plaintiff that the review bench of the Supreme Court assumed a jurisdiction it did not have in order to give judgement in that case,” he averred.
He further contends that “the assumption by the review bench of the jurisdiction to do substantial justice for all is unconstitutional, an illegality that undermines the Constitution and the rule of law which, if not checked, could lead to chaos and uncertainty in the administration of justice generally, and particularly in the exercise of the jurisdiction of this court”.
#woyome