Dr. Jabbie says objection was baseless
By Patrick J. Kamara
Lead defence counsel in the case of Hon. Dr. Bernadette Lahai vs Sierra Leone Peoples Party, Hon. Dr. Bu-Bukei Jabbie yesterday told the High Court, presided over by Justice Abdulai Charm that the interlocutory injunction granted to the complainant applicant and the objection of the latter’s lawyer, Blyden Jenkins-Johnston, was ‘baseless and unsupportable’.
He was speaking in response to the objection by the applicant lawyer on Monday (April 14,2014) that the judge should dismiss an application by the defendant that the injunction granted to the applicant was ‘procedurally flawed’.
“The objections made by plaintiff applicant were totally groundless, unsupportive, baseless and inapplicable to the defendant notice of motion” he opined, adding that opposing counsel had made a “gross misinterpretation” of the law by citing Order 2 Rule 2 of the High Court as a waiver for irregularities.
Dr. Jabbie established that the plaintiff applicant did not consider the objection he had earlier made in the notice of motion dated 6 January, 2014, and that he did not specify any particular relief item in the notice of motion.
He said the notice of motion was structured in terms of relief items, noting that relief item 1,2 and 3 are ex parte notice of motion, while 5,6,and 7 were concerned with the lapse of time in respect to the ex parte orders that had been placed earlier on the plaintiff’s application, plus 8,9, 10, and 11 deals with the irregularities in the writ of summon and want of jurisdiction.
He submitted that the counsel for the plaintiff did not specify the above relief items and were over generalised without specifications.
“None of the objections I made were considered in the plaintiff respond. His concern was only about the waiver of alleged irregularities,” he said, noting that the authorities relied on by the plaintiff applicant are not in any way or manner relevant to his objection.
He cited the High Court Rules of 2007, Order 8 Rule 3(1) and Order 35, Rule 1 (9,10,and 11) to support his claim made before the court.
He claimed that sub Rule 9 above has no precondition that any application made shall not remain in force for more than 7 days, noting that all the issues raised by plaintiff applicant do not in any sense affect the defendant applicant.
Meanwhile, the judge adjourned the matter for ruling, stating that he would send a notice to both parties.