By Francis H. Murray
The High Court in Freetown, presided by Justice Adrian Fisher, has ordered plaintiff in the ongoing court injunction matter against the main opposition All Peoples Congress (APC), Alfred Peter Conteh, to pay the sum of Le30, 000,000 as security for cost within seven days of the order.
Delivering his ruling on Wednesday 17 March 2021, the judge noted that there was no specific evidence before the court to prove that the plaintiff was unable to pay security for cost to the defendants if ordered by the court, adding that the plaintiff should file and serve upon the court evidence of such payment on or before the 25 March 2021.
He noted that failure to comply with the said order within the stipulated time would result in the court striking out the action, adding that both parties should be prepared to make ready their trial bundle in readiness for proceedings on 7 April 2021.
The ruling followed an application by Lawyer Ibrahim I. Mansaray, who represented the 1st defendant, former President Koroma, for security cost in the sum of Le10 billion and for the plaintiff’s application dated 26 February 2021 to be struck out.
Following the ruling, Lawyer Africanus Sorie Sesay made an application by way of notice of motion dated 5th March 2021 supported by an affidavit sworn to by 2nd defendant, APC’s Secretary General Osman Foday Yansaneh, with exhibits attached including the originating notice of motion and a copy of the interim injunction.
Relying on the totality of the said affidavit, he argued that the plaintiff had no leg to stand on as he had failed to show a course of action as well as what wrong was done to him that affected his own personal rights or to show the steps taken in bringing out the personal breaches of his rights as a member of the party.
He went on to note that added to the fact that the plaintiff was not ordinarily resident in Sierra Leone, he had also not shown any complaint either by email or on other social medial platforms that he had any grievance against the 2nd defendant as his client was separate and distinct from the other defendants in the matter.
Lawyer Sesay argued that the plaintiff had not shown how the election of a new party executive under a democratic constitution would affect his membership in the party but also specifically which of his interests had been affected or threatened as a result of the party’s preparation to adopt the new constitution.
He further argued that the plaintiff, Alfred Peter Conteh, had also failed to show how the holding of elections at all levels within the party had affected his personal interest as an ordinary member of the 3rd defendant (the party), describing his action as “frivolous, malicious, based on his personal vendetta and geared towards distorting the activities of the party”.
He concluded that the absence of any show of direct interest from the plaintiff would rob him off the locus to bring the action, stressing that the action in its entirety should be struck out.
Representing the APC party, Lawyer Ady Macauley in an application urged the court to allow the party’s National Advisory Council to continue their activities and be also allowed to adopt the draft constitution at a national delegate conference scheduled for this year.
He submitted that the originating notice of motion filed by the plaintiff was full of “fatal irregularities” and therefore contravened Order 5 Rule 3 sub rule (1) and Order 8 Rule 4 sub rule (4) of High Court Rules of 2007.
He added that the party had suffered injustice as a result of the ex-parte injunction and therefore submitted that the process used by the plaintiff, Alfred Peter Conteh, to initiate the matter was wrong as he ought to have come before the court by an originating summon instead of an originating notice of motion.
He urged the court to strike out the originating notice of motion filed by Alfred Peter Conteh.
The judge said that at the expiration of the seven days period, notices would be sent to all parties on how to proceed with the matter.
Copyright © 2021 Politico Online (19/03/21)
