The road has now been cleared for Madam Joana Gyan, a Parliamentary Candidate on the ticket of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) in the Amenfi Central constituency of the Western region to contest the December 7 Parliamentary election.
This follows a decision by a Sekondi High Court B, presided over by Justice G.K. Gyan Kontoh to vacate its earlier interlocutory injunction slapped on the candidate.
The court had slapped the injunction order on the candidate as a result of a case brought against the candidate and the National Democratic Congress over the former’s eligibility to contest the internal primary of the party.
Plaintiffs who initiated the suit against the candidate (1st respondent) and the NDC (2nd respondent) sought several reliefs including an annulment of the election that declared the 1st respondent winner plus a perpetual injunction restraining the candidate.
The court subsequently granted an interlocutory injunction against the candidate on 31st May, 2024.
Dissatisfied, Counsel for both the 1st and 2nd defendants filed processes before the same High Court to vacate the interlocutory order.
Counsel Thaddeus Sory, who represented the 2nd Defendant applicant, filed a process to have the whole suit dismissed whilst Godwin Edudzi Tamekloe, representing 1st respondent applicant filed motion to have the Court vacate its earlier injunction order.
Counsel Sory argued that the court inherent jurisdiction have been properly invoked over the application before it to dismiss and set aside the entire suit.
He averred that the question the application first raises was whether there have been a justiciable cause of action and this he answered in the affirmative.
He further argued that the election of 1st defendant, which was a subject of the suit, however, has become moot because it has now been overturned by a new election.
He contended that in political election, it is the party that presented the candidate so the question over who was eligible was a matter of determination by the political party.
As a result, what the plaintiff respondents were seeking to do by this suit was to go into the internal party issue of the political party.
But Counsel for plaintiff respondent, Gregory Kojo Asiedu, opposed the application. He argued the purported annulment of the said election did not resolve the issue of eligibility of the candidate.
As a result, the argument that by holding a new election made the suit moot did not arise because the eligibility of the candidate was still in contention. He quoted a Supreme Court case in support of his argument.
Justice Gyan Kontoh, after listening to both parties, dismissed six out of the seven reliefs being sought by the plaintiff respondents, leaving only one relief – the eligibility of the candidate.
On the application to vacate the court earlier injunction, Counsel Edudzi Tamekloe argued that a court of competent jurisdiction could visit its orders until final judgement quoting an authority in support of his argument.
On the interlocutory order, Counsel argued was not a final judgement for the court not to revisit its order.
That aside, Counsel went on to argue that the plaintiff respondents have not deposed anywhere that the court could not visit its earlier orders, and they do not deny the fact that the court could re-evaluate the balance of hardship.
Counsel Asiedu opposed the application on grounds that there was eligibility issue the Court ought to go into in order not to render the final decision of the court a nullity. As a result, it was proper the interlocutory injunction order remained so.
He reminded the Court that there have been application to stay the order of the court which has been unsuccessful.
Consequently, 1st applicant/respondent could not come to the court to ask it to vacate its earlier order. The application counsel argued was without merit because it defeated the purpose of the entire suit.
Ruling on the application, Justice Gyan Kontoh indicated that a court could anytime vacate its order if there have been a changed event.
In this instance, it was obvious there have been a change event of the re-run of the election where nomination was opened.
The plaintiff/respondents, the Court indicated, did not contest the election when nomination was opened. A fair play field was thus accorded the parties in the fresh election.
For this reason, the court held that application was made bonafide on grounds that there have been a change event and this should warrant the earlier order vacated. The order consequently is vacated.
The substantive case on the eligibility of the candidate the Judge indicated would take its normal course.
