Supreme Court dismisses Quayson’s review application

The Supreme Court has dismissed the review application filed by Mr James Gyakye Quayson, the Member of Parliament (MP) for Assin North Constituency.

A nine-member panel presided over by Justice Jones Dotse unanimously dismissed the application on grounds that the MP did not meet the threshold for the court to exercise its discretion in his favour.

Mr Gyakye Quayson is seeking a review of the restraining orders against him from performing his parliamentary duties and holding himself as an MP.

This is after Mr Michael Ankomah Nimfah had filed an interlocutory injunction against him, which succeeded.

The Supreme Court in a five-two majority ruling on April 13, 2022, granted an interlocutory injunction filed by Michael Ankomah Nimfah.

The panel heard oral arguments from Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata, for Mr Gyakye Quayson, Mr Frank Davies, Mr Emmanuel Addai for Electoral Commission and Madam Diana Asonaba Dapaah, Deputy Attorney General.

The applicant said 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 an interim injunction.

He also said the majority decision was in patent and fundamental error in failing to appreciate that the suit was an attempt to enforce the decisions of the High Court disguised as an invocation of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

The MP again said 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.

Mr Gyakye Quayson said 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 that the error occasioned a gross miscarriage of justice against the 1st defendant/respondent.

He said 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.

The majority decision violated articles 296(a) and (b) of the Constitution in exercising discretion unfairly and unreasonably.

He said the decision to proceed with the hearing of the 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: GNA