Saturday, 26 September 2015 08:12
Published in General News
The Fast Track High Court Friday
dismissed a preliminary legal
argument against a motion by the
Attorney General’s (AG’s)
Department for the court to strike out
the pleadings of 14 lower court
judges over the disciplinary
proceedings instituted against them.
The AG had filed a motion to strike
out the pleadings of the 14 lower
court judges on the grounds that their
action was frivolous, vexatious and
an abuse of the process of the court.
But counsel for the judges, Mr John
Ndebugri, raised a preliminary legal
argument that the application by the
AG was incompetent in law by reason
of uncertainty.
He averred that the title of the
application, which was “motion on
notice to strike out the pleadings
under the inherent jurisdiction of the
court and also under order 11 rule 18
(a), (b) and (d) of C.I. 47”, was wrong
in law.
His position was that the application
should have been either under the
inherent jurisdiction of the court or
under Order 11 rule 18, adding that
the two could not be joined.
It was also his contention that under
the law, the AG’s Department should
not have attached an affidavit in
support.
But the AG, represented by Mrs Helen
Ziwu, maintained that the application
was right in law and that under Order
11 rule (a), (b) and (d), it was
required to provide an affidavit in
support.
Court’s ruling
Dismissing the argument, the court,
presided over by Mrs Justice Gertrude
Torkornoo, said a properly drawn
application ought to include the two
aspects as had been done by the
AG’s Department, adding that it was
good practice and good sense to
invoke both.
She, therefore, ordered Mr Ndebugri to
file a response to the motion and
adjourned the case to Tuesday,
September 29, 2015 to hear their
arguments.
The Judicial Council had instituted
disciplinary proceedings against 14
lower court judges for allegedly
receiving bribes to compromise their
decisions, following the exposé by
ace undercover investigator Anas
Aremeyaw Anas.
However, the 14 dragged the Judicial
Council to the Fast Track High Court
over the disciplinary proceedings
instituted against them.
Among other things, they averred that
the Judicial Council’s disciplinary
proceedings against them had no
legal basis and “in the premises not
clothed with jurisdiction to proceed
as it is doing and is determined to
continue to do”.
Injunction case adjourned
In a related development, the court
has adjourned the hearing of an
interlocutory injunction brought by
counsel for the judges to Tuesday,
September 29, 2015.
This was in view of the fact that the
AG’s Department only served counsel
for the judges with their response to
the application yesterday and,
therefore, counsel for the judges
required some time to respond to the
issues therein.
Original posted by supremeentertainmentbmk.mobie.in
@2015-09-27 21:48 ( 0 comments )