Retired Supreme Court Judge Justice Francis Y. Kpegah has warned that he will “use the law and due process to strip” the main opposition New Patriotic Party’s 2012 Presidential candidate, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo “naked” as far as his quest to disprove his law credentials is concerned.
“He should explain how his solicitors, Davies and Davies forged the annexed exhibit (NADA 1) to his original application to strike out the action against him,” wondering: “Is that why he has clandestinely changed his fraudulent solicitors with Godfred Yeboah Dame without filing a notice of change of solicitors?”
“I will go on with my case against him no matter what tricks they employ. I am undeterred and will proceed with my case against the defendant, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo who is not on the roll of lawyers in Ghana and is therefore not competent to practise law in Ghana”, he insisted.
The former Acting Chief Justice in a long press statement issued on Tuesday April 23, 2013 said: “Today… a Judicial sacrilege was occasioned when the presiding Judge at the Fast Track High Court granted audience to Lawyer Godfred Yeboah Dame to move an ill conceived application to strike out the case in the matter involving my humble self Justice Francis Yaonasu Kpegah as plaintiff and NANA ADDO DANKWA AKUFO-ADDO as Defendant, SUIT NO. AP 94/2013”.
He averred that: “The presiding Judge should not have granted audience to Lawyer Godfred Yeboah Dame since he did not enter appearance to the writ of summons for and on behalf of the Defendant NANA ADDO DANKWA AKUFO-ADDO and is therefore not known to the honourable court and the parties to the instant suit”.
He asserted that: “The only way he could have been granted audience by the honourable court is if he had filed a notice of change of solicitors,” adding that: “My Search at the Registry of the Fast Track High Court indicates that there was no notice of change of solicitors filed at the registry of the Fast Track High Court. This was also confirmed by the Registrar of the Fast Track High Court, Mr Gyimah”.
The retired Justice who is challenging Nana Akufo-Addo’s law credentials explained in the statement that: “I was unable to attend Court today [Tuesday April 23], in person due to ill health”.
“However, I was duly represented by Mr. Djantuh, a practising Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Ghana”.
He warned that: “…My not being in Court personally today should not offer any premature sanctuary of comfort to the defendant Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo–Addo”.
“I am still going to let the whole world know that Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo is impersonating WAD Akufo-Addo who is number 1190 on the roll of lawyers in Ghana,”, he threatened.
He said: “I have filed my motion on notice for summary judgment and a 76 paragraph supporting affidavit and the court will be moved by me on the 9th of May 2013. My claim is that I have an iron cast and unimpeachable claim against the defendant, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo who has no defence in law and in fact to the case against him that his name is not on the roll of lawyers in Ghana and that he is impersonating one WAD Akufo-Addo who is number 1190 on the Roll of Lawyers in Ghana”.
He said the application by Nana Akufo-Addo to strike out the action as “frivolous, vexatious, abuse of the process and disclosing no reasonable Cause of Action under order 11 rule 18(a),(b), (c), (d) and the inherent jurisdiction of the court brought by the defendant is misplaced and erroneous in law for the simple reason that order 11 rule 18 of CI 47 deals with ‘striking out pleadings’ and not ‘striking out action’”.
He noted that: “Order 11 rule 18 (1) provides that “the court may at any stage of the proceedings order any pleading or anything in any pleading struck out on the grounds that: (a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence; or (b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or (c) it may prejudice, embarrass, or delay the fair trial of the action; or (d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court, and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly”.
“Clearly the application by the defendant to strike out the action is unknown to the rules of court the circumstances,” he mocked.
He insisted that: “The defendant through his solicitors Davies and Davies entered a normal appearance to the writ and therefore cannot move to set aside the writ”.
According to him, “Having realised their monumental procedural error of not entering a conditional appearance which would have clothed them with an unfettered right to move to set aside the writ, they have attempted to reinvent the rules of court by attempting to strike out the action which is improper and rather the real abuses of the court process”.
“If Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo has nothing to hide why is he conniving with agents and cronies to strike out the action as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process?” he asked.
“He should defend himself if he still has any bit of integrity left in him. How can a man who wants to be president of this dear Country of ours have so many question marks all over him? He should pray to God for the strength he apparently lacks to confront his personal demons squarely”.
“I am verily informed and verily believe same to be true by my representative whom I gave a power of attorney to represent me in court today that the court has adjourned the hearing of the application of the defendant to strike out the action for the 2nd of may 2013”.
He also said the presiding judge cannot “grant audience to Lawyer Godfred Yeboah Dame since he did not enter appearance to the writ of summons and did not also file a notice for a change of solicitors. The presiding judge should not compromise the Rules of Court and the hard won image of the Judiciary to further the parochial interest of Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo”.
Justice Kpegah also claimed his counsel was abused in court on Tuesday when the case was called for the first time.
“My Representative Mr Djantuh was today manhandled and shouted down in court by some senior lawyers who are apparently sympathetic to Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo. He was violently pushed and shoved by these disgraceful elements. I am disgusted that this is how low some persons in the legal fraternity have sunk.
They have effectively abandoned all the ethics required of members of this hitherto honourable profession. By their conduct, it is clear that some gangsters have found their way into the legal community and must be smoked out”.