The Supreme Court has for the second time adjourned the Review Application filed by embattled Member of Parliament (MP) for Assin North Constituency, James Gyakye Quayson to May 31.
The MP is challenging the Supreme Court orders to stop him from performing his parliamentary functions.
The case was on May 10, 2022 adjourned to today, May 17 for hearing.
However in court on Tuesday, the Registrar of the Supreme Court said, he has the instructions of the panel to adjourn the case May 31.
Mr James Quayson is seeking a review of the restraining orders against him from performing his parliamentary duties following an interlocutory injunction motion.
The Apex Court in a 5-2 majority ruling on April 13, 2022 granted an interlocutory injunction filed by Michael Ankomah Nimfah.
According EIB Network’s Court Correspondent Murtala Inusah, the substantive matter regarding the interpretation of Article 94(2)(a) of the 1992 Constitution and the MP’s motion for Certiorari to quash the Cape Coast Court of Appeal striking out his appeal have been adjourned to same day.
*Grounds for review*
The review motion is premised on the following 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 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 article 296(a) and (b) of the Constitution in exercising discretion unfairly and unreasonably.
g. The decision to proceed with the hearing of 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: Kasapafmonline.com/Murtala Inusah