Punish Kpegah – Akuffo-Addo tells court

General News of Monday, 8 April 2013

Source: Daily Guide

Nana Addo Finger

Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo has described the recent action taken against his integrity by Justice Francis Yaonansu Kpegah as not only frivolous and vexatious, but one unworthy of hearing by the High Court.

He said Justice Kpegah should be punished for his frivolities in instituting the action.

This was contained in a legal response to the issues raised by the retired Justice of the Supreme Court against him; an action which made disturbing headlines and whose motion would be heard on April 23, 2013, according to a notice of motion filed on behalf of the 2012 flagbearer of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) by Davies & Davies Legal Practitioners & Notaries Public.

In an affidavit supporting his position, Nana Akufo-Addo rubbished the allegation of the retired Justice which sought to imply that he is not the bearer of the name which appears in the General Legal Council register of legal practitioners in the country and is therefore an impersonator.

Abuse of Process

While further regarding the position of the retired Justice of the Supreme Court as an abuse of the process of the court, Nana Akufo-Addo added that it is devoid of a reasonable cause of action.

“I am further advised by counsel and verily believe same to be true that the Plaintiff’s action fails to canvass facts necessary to form the basis of any issue worthy of a proper hearing by this honourable court,” the supporting affidavit stressed.

While rubbishing the position of the retired Supreme Court Justice in paragraph 5 of his pleadings that he (Nana Akufo-Addo) “was impersonating one W.E.D Akufo-Addo who was called to the middle Temple on 22nd July, 1971 and is on the Roll of Lawyers in Ghana as No.1190”, the NPP leader wondered why in another breath of the same pleadings the plaintiff claimed that “the person I am impersonating is not W.E.D Akufo-Addo who is also on the same roll of lawyers with the same No 1190”.

The foregone, according to him, smacks of frivolity and founded on mischief, since ‘I cannot be impersonating two persons with the same number on the same roll of lawyers in Ghana.

Comments