The Supreme Court must always ensure consistent application in the principles of law.
Its approach to the application for stay of execution by Alex Markin in the vacant seats saga is most confusing.
The first problem is the nature of the application which was sought. A party cannot seek an application for stay of execution in respect of a matter which is not a judgement or a Court order. The Speaker’s order is not of such. In any case, it is absurd to seek a stay of execution in a case in which the Court has not made any orders.
The second point and the most fundamental one is that the cause of action for which the applicant went to Court had long been superseded by the conduct of the Speaker who had declared the seats vacant. The action was filed at a time when the seats were yet to be declared vacant. At the date of hearing the application was not in sync with the writ before the Court.
It is important to note that the Speaker’s conduct by which he declared the seats vacant created a new cause of action.
The applicant has not amended the writ to fit the new facts in the application.
The grant of the application was thus a merger of the new facts in the old cause of action. You cannot put new wine in an old wine sack. It cannot hold.
Under the circumstances the Court was procedurally wrong in many ways.
And then again, the Court’s assumption of jurisdiction in the face of Article 99 leaves a lot of unanswered questions.
Kwame Boafo Akuffo Esq
Akropong Akwapim
The post Why the Supreme Court’s decision on vacant seat saga is most confusing first appeared on 3News.
Read Full Story
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Instagram
Google+
YouTube
LinkedIn
RSS