Bawku Central seat

Kulendi, Atuguba battle in court today
Posted: The Chronicle | Wednesday, July 22, 2009.



By Charles Takyi-Boadu
An Accra Fast Track High Court will today hear the arguments of two of the country's prominent lawyers - Yonny Kulendi and Dr Raymond Atuguba as to whether the disputed MP for Bawku Central, Adamu Dramani should be retained or not.

Kulendi is seeking to quash an earlier default judgment which disqualified Mr. Dramani from holding himself out as MP for the area following a writ filed against him by one Sumaila Biebel, who is being represented by Dr Atuguba.

Dramani has already filed a stay of execution against the judgement. By setting aside the default judgment to stay execution, lawyers for the MP believe it will prevent a situation where the plaintiff/respondent, Sumaila Biebel, will take advantage of the judgment and cause irretrievable harm and injury to the constituents of Bawku Central and their representative MP.

In a motion filed at the court, Kulendi argued that in exercising its discretion as to whether or not to grant the instant application, the court ought to have considered whether or not their client, Mr. Dramani, who is an elected Member of Parliament, had reasonable defence to the respondent’s (Sumaila Biebel) action.

He noted that his client had more than just reasonable defence and indicated their preparedness to raise points of law; which required that the court ought to exercise its discretion in their client’s favour, in granting the instant application.

The motion on notice denied the fraud allegation leveled against Mr. Dramani by the plaintiff since in their opinion, it is so serious that it requires the taking of, and admission of evidence in proof, or otherwise; and ought not to operate as a default judgment.

Kulendi premised his argument on the fact that the court had a duty to investigate the various allegations made by the plaintiff, especially bordering fraud and to determine them on merits.

This, according to him, is evident in the fact that the plaintiff's allegation of he (Dramani) holding a British passport and owing allegiance to Great Britain/United Kingdom, can only be proved or established by taking of evidence by the court, since one of the cardinal principles of natural justice prescribes that a man must be heard before he is condemned.

He averred that this principle of justice would be in jeopardy if the court does not exercise its discretion in their client's favour by granting this application so as to enable him file his defence for the suit to be determined on its merits.

The lawyers attributed their inability to furnish a defence to the court to what they described as unavoidable reasons and not out of disrespect to the court.

In exercising its discretion as to whether or not to grant this instant application, Kulendi argued in the motion that the court ought to have considered whether or not his client had a 'bona fide' or probable defence or reasonable or fair grounds for setting up a defence or in the alternative raised triable issues in his defence as contained in his statement of defence.

“It is very necessary for this Honourable court to stay execution of the judgment and order of this court; pending the determination of the application on its merits."