Fuica ox at. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDIEATURE,. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUFHCBUPREME CO, ACCRA — AD 2015 Registrar F GHANA, SUITNO 117272016 BETWEEN: ABDULAL YUSIF FANASH MUHAMMED BL 1-1.166, Z0NGO, HOHOE. PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT AND |. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL MINISTRY OF JUSTICE 1°" DEFENDANT MINISTERIES ACCRA 2. ALFRED AGBESI WOYOME HOUSE NO. 327/7 28? DEFENDANT COMCAN CRESCENT, KOKOMLEMLE, ACCRA 3. MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU PLOT NO 355 NORTH LEGON 3° DEFENDANTIAPPLICANT. RESIDENTIAL AREA, ACCRA NOTICE OF MOTION TO RAISE PRELIMINARY LEGAL OBJECTION ‘TAKE NOTICE AND NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that this Honourable Court shall be moved by the 3" Defendant/Applicant herein praying this Cout for an order dismissing the Weit of ‘Summons and Statement of Case filed and commencing this action on 22” December 2015 by the PlaintiRespondent herein upon the jurisdictional preliminary legal objection grounds stated _ in the accompanying affidavit and for such further or other orders as to this Honourable Court may seem fit . Tits Dy Pee COURT TO BE MOVED on |... the Say of Famuary 2016 at 9 O'clock in the forenoon or so soon thereafter a the Defendant Applicant may be heard ae AT ACCRA THIS 18"™ DAY OF JANUARY 2016 ARIUS si (® DEFENDANTIAPPLICANT)‘THE REGISTRAR SUPREME COURT ACCRA AND FOR SERVICE ON: ()__ THE PLAINTIFFRESPONDENT HEREIN OR HIS SOLICITORS, KWASI AFRIFA, 0 & A LEGAL CONSULT, H/NO NTER 301, AMAKOM. (@) THE 1°" DEFENDANT, THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ATTORNEY- GENERAL'S CHAMBERS, MINISTRIES, ACCRA @) THE 2"? DEFENDANT, ALFRED AGBESI WOYOME, H/NO 327/7 COMCAN CRESENT, KOKOMLEMLE, ACCRA OR lS SOLICITORSRegistrar SUITNO 31272016 BETWEEN: ABDULAL YUSIF FANASH MUHAMMED BL 1-166, Z0NGO, HOHOE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT AND 1. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL MINISTRY OF JUSTICE 1" DEFENDANT MINISTERIES ACCRA 2. ALFRED AGBESI WOYOME HOUSE NO. 327/7 2"? DEFENDANT COMCAN CRESCENT, KOKOMLEMLE, ACCRA 3. MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU PLOT NO 385 NORTH LEGON 3° DEFENDANTIAPPLICANT. RESIDENTIAL AREA, ACCRA AFFIDAVIT OF MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU THE 3*° DEFENDANTIAPPLICANT IN ‘SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION HEREIN 1, Martin Alamisi Amidu of Plot No 355 North Legon Residential Area, Accra, make oath and say as follows: 1. Tam the 3" Defendan/ Applicant and deponentherin. 2, The Plaintift/Respondent herein on 22"! December 2015 commenced ths action invoking the original jurisdiction of this Court against me as the 3" Defendant claiming the following relict ‘A declaration that the financial enginering claims by Alfied Agbesi Woyome arising out of the tender bid by Vamed Engineering OmbH/Waterville Holdings uring the procurement process fom June 2005 until its wrongful abrogation in ‘August 2005 is not an inferatonal business transaction within the meaning. of article 181 of the Constitton, 1992,2 A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of article 21), article 130 and ance 181 ofthe Constitution, 1992 the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to pronounce on the financial engincering claims between a citizen of Ghana and the Government of Ghana which does not fall within the ambit oF purview of article 181 3A declaration that the review decision of the Supreme Court in Sut No, ST/O2OLS intled (ie) Martin Alamisi Amid Vv The Atorney General, Waterville Holding (BVD) Lined anu Alfred Agbesi Woyome dated 29° July 2014 is wrong inlaw for exces of jurisdiction a same was obtained in violation ofthe Constitution, 1992 4A declaration tha the consequential orders in Sut No, 37/10/2013 intituled (sic) Martin Alamisi'v The Attorney General, Woterile Holding (BV) Limited and “Alfred Aghesi Wayome dated 29 oly 2014 given in the review decision by the Same Cour are wrong in aw; null and void ab initio and accordingly ought to be set aside in exercise of the powers ofthis Honourable Court o st aside its om ‘void judgments” I was served with the Writ of Summons and the Plaintiff's Statement of Case on 6* January 2016 and I filed my Statement of 3" Defendant’s Case on 18" January 2016 in response thereto, ‘A casual weading of the four relief endorsed on the PlintiffRespondent’s Writ of Summons purporting 10 invoke the original jurisdiction ofthis Court leaves one in 00 doubt that none of those reliefs raises any issue of interpretation or enforeement of the Constittion 10 eloth the PlaintifRespondent in this action with any locus sand 10 ‘commence this aetion under Articles 2(1), and 130 ofthe 1992 Constitution — See the ‘snalogeal reasoning and binding force ofthis Court's ruling in AdjerAmpojo v Attormey- General (2003-2005) SCGLR 1 The 1 relief endorsed on the PlainifRespondent’s Wri of Summons isin substance sand inform seeking an advisory opinion ofthis Court gnd also to reargue an issue Which was in dspate between the then Plant (now the 3" Defendant Applicant herein) and the then 3" Defendant (Alfed Aghest Woyome refered to in the endorsement and now the 2 Defendant herein) before the ordinary bench ofthis Court in the ease of Amida (No 1)» Atorney General, Watervile Holding (BVD) Lid & Woyome (No 1) [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR 112 and which was conclusively deemed inthe review ruling of tis Court in Amidu (No 3) v Attorney General, Waterville Holding (BV) Lid & Woyome (No 2) (2013-2014) 1 SCGLR 606. “The reference in the I relief endorsed on the PlaintifVRespondent’s Writ of Summons to ‘Alfred Agbesi Woyome without indicating that the said Afted Agbesi Woyome is the same person as the 2”! Defendant herein shows that in substance and in form this action of the Plaintiff/Respondent is only a camouflage and intended to give the I" Defendant, ‘nd particulary, the 2" Defendant herein another opportunity o feopen and reargue the review decision of this Court in Amida (No 3) (supra) the subject matter of ther 1 0. Plain Respondent's 3° and 4 relies endorsed on his Writ of Summons as quoted supra, ‘The 2 relief endorsed on the Plaintiff Respondent’s Writ is also in substance and in form asking not for interpretation and/ or enforcement of the 1992 Constitution as ‘mandated under Articles 2 and 130 thereof but for an advisory opinion ofthis Court on the extent of is jurisdiction on Anicle 181of the Constitution as the reliefs 6, 7,10, 13, and 14 claimed, endorsed on the Writ, and quoted by the Court in Amidu (No 1) (supra) ‘and Amida (3) (supra) show that the rettutionary claims on the international business or ‘economic transaction were made by the 2"! Defendant herein (then as the 3" Defendant), ‘a Ghanaian citizen, jointly with Austro-Invest Management Ltd (a foreign registered and resident company subsequently liquidated abroad on 26 July 2011). ‘The pith of the plaintitfRespondent’s action is the 3" relief endorsed on the Writ of Summons invoking the original jurisdiction of this Court and challenging the jurisdiction of this Court for reviewing its own decision in Amid (No 3) (supra) as though this Court did not consider the question of its jurisdiction before admitting, deciding and granting the review application, The 3" relief endorsed on the Writ of Summons states that: "3. declaration that the review decision of the Supreme Court In Sut ‘No.J7/1072013 intitle (le) Marin Alamisi Amid v The Attorney Genera, Worervlte Holding (BY) Limited and Alfred Agbesi Woyome dated 29" July 2014 is rong inlaw fr excess of jurisdiction as same was tained in violation “ofthe Consitaion, 1992.” (Enmphasis supplied) Itis clear from the foregoing thatthe PaintifRespondent does not seek an interpretation ‘or enforcement of any provision of the Constitution pursuant to Article 2(1)(6) and 130, ‘thereof but as stated in the 4" relief endorsed on the Writ, forthe simple and erroneous reason that the consequential orders "..dated 29 July 2014 given in the review decision ‘by the same court are wrong in law, null and void ab initio and accordingly ought to be set aside in the exercise ofthe powers ofthis Honourable Court o set aside its own void Judgments.” (Emphasis supplied). 11am of the firm belief that the Plaintif/Respondent's Writ of Summons and Statement of Case diselose no locus standi or eause of aetion vested in him against me or any of the defendants herein under the original jurisdiction ofthis Cour. The averments contained in the Plaintif/Respondent’s Statement of Case provide no basis for invoking the original jurisdiction ofthis Cour. Commonsense should have wamed the PlainiffRespondent that an ordinary bench of this court hearing his Writ of Summons and Statement of Case will have no jurisdiction to declare the ruling ofthe review beach in Amidu (No 3) v Attorney General, Waterville Holding (BVD Ltd & Woyome (No 2) [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR 606 null and void or in any ‘other manner attempt to review same under the smokescreen of exercising any original jurisdiction in this action,13. The Plaintf/Respondent was warned or ought to have been warned by this Cour’s decision in Okudzeto Ablakwa (No 3) & Another v Attorney-General & Obetsebi- Lamptey (No 3) (2013-2014) 1 SCGLR 16 at page 21 in which this Court decided that ‘while it may depart from its own previous decision in terms of Article 129) of the Constitution, until it had done so it would “be incorrect to argue thatthe Supreme Court is in eror in following its own previous and unchallenged decision” and an applicant ‘would face “a difficulty in persuading this court that there was fundamental eror in the judgment... when the alleged error is based on the court following. its ovm previous judgment” such as Hanna Assi (No 2) v Gihoc Refrigeration & Household Products Lid {No 2) [2007-2008] SCGLR 16 in Amid (No 3. 14, The Plaitff/Respondent knew that the 2" Defendant and any other interest for whose ‘benefit he purported to have initiated this incompetent action did not and could not have applied fora review of this Court's binding review ruling in Amid (No 3) almost one and half years after the decision because they were cognizant of the fact that there was no right under the Constitution to have same reviewed or directly varied by any other Court under the Constitution and the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (CI 16) for any reason ‘whatsoever and that cannot be circumvented by this incompetent action of the Plaintff/Respondent 15.1 am of the sincere boliof ftom the conduct of the 1" and the 2" Defendant, in unconsttutionally creating the judgment debt giving rise to and determined in Amid (No 3) and the subsequent conduct, ations and public pronouncements of the 1" and 2° Defendants, partculaly since the commencement of this action, that the Plaintt/ Applicant who resides in Hoboe in the Volta Region with his frm of lawyers in Kumasi is ast a smokesereen behind whom te 1" and 2" Defendants together with other interests (responsible for a mysterious document of over 400 pags refered 1 and quoted variously in the Siaement of Case of the PlaintfPRespondent as “ibe Atachment” ‘without being exhibited) are deliberately sexking to have second ite at the chery, to continue to delay, and justify the non-execution and payment of the judgment debt fonder by this Court in Amid (No 3) more than one and hal years ago. 16. The commencement of this incompetent action by the Plaintiff/Respondent on 22 December 2015 provided the 1 Defendant through His Excellency President John Dramani Mahama the shameless cover behind which to tell the public (Tor whose benefit the judgment debt in Amid (No 3) (supea) was given and ordered on 29 July 2014 inures) fon 12 January 2016 at a media encounter broadcast to the whole world that the I Defendant was unable to execute the ruling and orders inthe said Amidu (No 3) because of this pending action: the 2"! Defendant on his part used it asa cover to purport to apply to this Court for a suspension of the ruling and orders in Amid (No 3) (supra) pending the hearing and disposal of this incompetent action as a means of buying time to prevent the 3° Defendant/Applicant from bringing any action against him for disobedience tothe ‘orders ofthis Court under Article 2 of the 1992 Constitution. 17.1 believe that the PlaintifVRespondent’s Writ and Statement of Case are frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of this Court for lack of locus standi and/or any‘cause of action vested in the Plaintif/Respondent against the 3" Defendanv/Applicant or any of the Defendants pursuant to Articles 2(1)(b) and 130(1(@), and Rule 45 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (CI 16) to warrant the invocation of the original jurisdiction of this Court 18. It is my firm conviction that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintff/Respondent’s Writ and Statement of Case or in any other manner declare the binding decision of this Court in Amid (No 3) v Auorney-General, Waterville Holding (BV) Lid & Woyome (No 2) [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR 606 null and void for lack of oF ‘excess of jurisdiction. 19.1n addition to the foregoing 1 have raised preliminary legal objections in my said Statement of the 3" Defendant’s Case filed in this Court which also contains detailed submissions on law on the preliminary legal objections upon which I intend to rely atthe hearing ofthis application, 20. | accordingly pray this Court to dismiss the Plaimtiff/Respondent’s Writ and Statement of Case in limine with punitive costs in favour of the 3" Defendant/Applicant on the {oregoing grounds and also on the ground that tis action is without any merit whatsoever under the 1992 Constitution and Rule 45 ofthe Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C16). WHEREFORE I swear to this affidavit in in support of my application raising preliminary legal ‘objection t the jurisdiction of this Court inthis action. sworn st Acsatie LS M, a day of Janusry, 2016 - (ORPONENT} BEFORE ME ( Nos COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS REGISTRAR SUORENE COURT