By Francis H. Murray
Justice Komba Kamanda has withdrawn the files for ruling in respect of the matter between members of the National Reformation Movement (NRM) of the opposition APC and the leadership of the mainstream party. The judge acted after a jurisdictional objection submitted by lawyers of the party because one of those who brought the original case to the High Court refused to fall in line with his other two colleagues who now want to discontinue their case against the APC.
In his objection on Monday 22nd February 2021, Lawyer Addy Macaulley who represents the party’s leadership said that there was no application or action before the court and that the case for the 3rd Plaintiff should not stand on its own.
He argued that the action was commenced on the back of an originating notice of motion which cannot stand on its own unless it was supported by an affidavit, adding that without an affidavit upon which the facts or orders prayed for are predicated, the court must not hear the matter.
Lawyer Macauley said in the case before the court, the originating notice of motion dated 15th January 2020 was supported by the affidavit of Alfred Minkailu Koroma being the 1st Plaintiff Applicant on his own behalf, with nothing indicating that he did so that on behalf of the other plaintiffs or with their consent.
He added that given the fact that both the 1st and 2nd Petitioners have discontinued their action, they took with them the only affidavit sworn to by Koroma, noting that in the absence of an affidavit that gives support to the body of the action left, the court should strike out the said action. He said because the court does not act in vain and in the absence of an affidavit in support of the action of Sulaimani Kamara, the court lacked the jurisdiction to proceed with the matter.
In his response, Lawyer Hindolo Gevao who represents Sulaimani Kamara being the only substantive applicant remaining in the matter told the court that the affidavit of Koroma was filed with the authority of the other plaintiffs, which makes the action of his client viable and legitimate before the court.
He argued that the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs cannot discontinue their action thereby discharging the affidavit because the application had liabilities in the event things went otherwise.
He added that if the court was to hold that the injunction that was granted was not properly so done, the 3rd Plaintiff remains legally liable to pay any damages that the court will order as a result of the wrongful submissions made before it which led to the granting of that injunction.
He further noted that while the affidavit was done with the consent or authority of all the plaintiffs, the discontinuance was done without the consent of the 3rd plaintiff.
He concluded that it will be unfair and unjust if the action of the 3rd plaintiff is to be struck out on the grounds of the discontinuance of the 1st plaintiff who happens to be the deponent of the affidavit that he authored on the authority of the 3rd plaintiff. Lawyer Ngevao urged the court to allow the matter to proceed in the interest of justice.
At the end of both submissions, Justice Kamanda noted that the date and time of the ruling on the jurisdictional objection in respect of the matter will be communicated to both parties.
The NRM presents itself as a pressure group within the APC seeking sweeping reforms within the party. The group brought the case to court action against the leadership of the APC which includes Osman Foday Yansaneh, Ernest Bai Koroma. The injunction halted a mini convention of the party that was scheduled to take place in Portloko in January 2020.
Copyright © 2021 Politico Online
