26.1 C
Sierra Leone
Tuesday, May 17, 2022
spot_img

Plaintiff’s quest to discontinue KKY’s citizenship case ‘flawed’

March 29, 2018 By Regina Pratt

Counsel for David Fornah, plaintiff in the matter involving Dr. Kandeh K. Yumkella and six others, Lawyer Centus Macauley, has informed the apex court that he had received instructions from his client to discontinue the matter.

This application was made on Wednesday, March 28, at the Supreme Court by Mr. Macauley before Justices N.C. Browne Marke, Eku Roberts, Glenna Thompson, Alusine Sesay and Mohamed Sengu-Koroma.

Dr. Yumkella’s lead defense counsel, Dr. Abdulai O. Conteh, told the quintet of judges that he had received a document without a supporting affidavit to the application, noting that he was uncertain under whose authority the document as filed.

He said the document was flawed and untenable as the notice of discontinuance was done with a caveat.

Also, defence counsel Yasmin Jusu-Sheriff, who is representing the 6th and 7th defendants, confirmed that a similar document was sent to her with heading ‘discontinuance’, adding that that was not the proper way the plaintiff could have sought to remove the matter from court.

She prayed that the Supreme Court order the plaintiff to tender the document the proper way.

Lawyer Drucil Taylor, counsel representing the chairperson of the National Electoral Commission, admitted receiving the document and that they were not averse to the application.

He further noted that in light of the circumstances, he wished to inform the court that the plaintiff did not comply with Rule 98 of the Supreme Court.

On his part, Lawyer Ibrahim Sorie Yillah, who is representing the 5th defendant, informed the court that the issue of costs should be taken into consideration prior to an order of discontinuance.

In response, Lawyer Macauley cited the Supreme Court case of John Sahr  Yambasu and three others versus Hon. Ernest Bai Koroma, adding that he had been instructed by his client to discontinue the matter.

Justice Browne-Marke averred that the notice of discontinuance filed by the plaintiff’s counsel was ineffectual and should be discontinued, and that the motion for withdrawal should be filed not later than 11a.m. on Thursday, March 29.

The judge also ordered that after the filing, the court shall fix a date and time for hearing of the said application, adding that if the application was filed and served within the stipulated time, the court would convene on today to decide on costs and discontinuance.

 

Related Articles

Latest Articles