Socialize

APC, NRM battle in court

-matter adjourned for ruling

January 27, 2020

By Regina Pratt

nrm

NRM Chairman, Mohamed Sheridan Kamara

Hon. Justice Komba Kamanda on Friday, January 24, adjourned the matter between the All People’s Congress (APC) and the National Reformation Movement (NRM) for ruling after both Counsels for the plaintiffs and respondents made preliminary objections on Jurisdiction and locust standi.

Arguing in court, counsel for the defendants,Wara Serry Kamal said the plaintiffs’ counsel failed to endorse the capacity on the face of the affidavit of 15th January, 2020.

Representing the plaintiffs, Lawyer H.M. Gevao replied that the originating notice of motion was not issued from the Master and Registrar of the High Court because it did not carry a seal.

Lawyer Gevao submitted that compliance was strictly done with all necessary payments made and receipts issued by the Judiciary, with the mater assigned to a judge for hearing.

He added that the issue of not taking Judicial seal has been very common.

On the issue of capacity, Lawyer Gevao said it is simply the form in which the parties come to court, and that the plaintiff cannot be referred to as the defendant.

On the issue of locust standi, he argued that the plaintiffs are paid up members of the APC, having exhibited their party cards with receipts.

He said the plaintiffs had contested for Parliamentary symbols at the APC and paid all their dues, thus calling on the judge to discountenance the claim that his clients are not members of the APC.

Lawyer Gevao said the court is vested with absolute jurisdiction to hear and determine the notice of motion dated 15th January, 2020, noting that the defendants’ counsel replied using Section 124 of the 1991 Constitution and referenced Section 35 (2).

Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that his clients are not in court to seek interpretation or enforcement of the 1991 Constitution, but to ask the court to enforce all in the APC 1995 Constitution as the document is being violated.

In her second reply, counsel for the defendants, Lawyer Wara Serry Kamal said the orders that the plaintiffs prayed for cannot be granted or determined by the High Court, but the Supreme Court.