General News of Friday, 12 April 2013
The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered Mr Martin Amidu, former Minister of Justice and Attorney General to file his objection to the defendants Power of Attorney in affidavits in the Isofoton case.
The Court said the affidavits from the plaintiff would help the defendants to respond to the plaintiff’s argument.
The Court’s order follows his earlier objection to an amended writ filed by Kizito Beyuo, Counsel for Anane Forson, concerning the Power of Attorney of his client.
Mr Amidu said he was supposed to make his legal arguments today but because of the issue brought by the defendants concerning the Power of Attorney, he has been forced to respond to it.
At that juncture he prayed the Court to make a decision whether the case can still go on or not.
When he was allowed by the Court to proceed with his case he relied on his affidavits filed on February 18, 2013 and that he has not amended any of his statement of case.
Mr Amidu argued that his attention was drawn to the issue of the Power of Attorney only this morning and therefore had to respond to the issue.
He said he has not made any further legal argument on his statement of case and that it was wrong for the defendant to file additional statement after evidence when pleadings have been closed.
“All these documents of Power of Attorney are new to me,” he said, and argued that the documents for the Power of Attorney have not been authenticated and authorized.
The Court further ordered Mr Amidu to file the affidavits within five days while the defendants also have five days within which to respond.
It also instructed Mr Amidu to provide affidavits on additional matters that he would want the court to know.
The facts are that Isofoton SA brought an action in 2008 against the state and secured a default judgment with no specific amount.
The state went to court in 2009 and filed processes in an attempt to set aside that default judgment.
The state however, did not continue with that process but instead reached an out-of-court settlement with the company to pay an amount of $1.3 million.
On September 28, 2010, the settlement agreement was filed and adopted by the court on September 29, 2010.
The state paid $400,000.00 and indicated the mode of payment of the remainder.
It however defaulted, prompting Isofoton to garnishee the Agriculture Ministry’s Accounts on November 21, 2011.
On April 20, 2012, the Attorney General tried to set aside the garnishee process but failed and on June 5, 2012 applied for a stay of execution which the court threw out.