IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SUIT NO:........................................................... NJONOLAH LINUS ) ---------- PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT IMMEDIATE PAST TEIN PRESIDENT ) OF THE AKROKERRI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ) CARD BEARING MEMBER OF THE NDC ) H/NO. 17, MANSO ATWEDIE WITHIN THE ) AMANSIE – WEST CONSTITUENCY. ) VERSUS 1. THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS (NDC) ) PER THE NATIONAL CHAIRMAN, ) THE NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS, ACCRA. ) 2. THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ) ---------- DEFENDANTS/RESPS. OF THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS (NDC) PER THE NATIONAL CHAIRMAN, ACCRA. ) MOTION ON NOTICE FOR AN ORDER OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION MOTION ON NOTICE BY FELIX DATSOMOR, ESQ. Counsel for and on behalf of the Plaintiff/Applicant herein praying this Honourable Court for an order of Interlocutory Injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants from conducting the National Executive Committee and all Regional Executive Committee elections until otherwise ordered by the Court on the grounds more particularly set out in the supporting affidavit. AND for any order or such other or further orders or relief(s) which this Court may deem fit. COURT TO BE MOVED on …………………. the …………… day of September, 2014 at 9:00 O’clock in the forenoon or so soon thereafter as the Counsel for the Defendant/Appellant/Applicant can be heard. DATED AT “IN GOD I TRUST LEGAL CONSULT LTD.”, MILLENNIUM PLAZA, ASOKWA, KUMASI THIS 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014. FELIX DATSOMOR, ESQ. LL.B (Hons), BL. SOLICITOR FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT Email: [email protected] LIC/NO. AR 08548/14 CHAMBERS REG. NO: PP0001773/14 THE REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT KUMASI – ASHANTI. AND COPY FOR SERVICE ON THE DEFENDANTS HEREIN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SUIT NO:........................................................... NJONOLAH LINUS ) --------------- PLAINTIFF IMMEDIATE PAST TEIN PRESIDENT ) OF THE AKROKERRI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ) CARD BEARING MEMBER OF THE NDC ) H/NO. 17, MANSO ATWEDIE WITHIN THE ) AMANSIE – WEST CONSTITUENCY. ) VERSUS 1. THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS (NDC) ) PER THE NATIONAL CHAIRMAN, ) THE NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS, ACCRA. ) 2. THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ) -------------- DEFENDANTS OF THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS (NDC) PER THE NATIONAL CHAIRMAN, ACCRA. ) AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT I, NJONOLAH LINUS OF H/NO I. 17, MANSO ATWEDIE, ASHANTI, MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS: 1. That I am Plaintiff/Applicant and the deponent herein. 2. That I swear to this affidavit as the facts are within my personal knowledge, information and/or belief. 3. That my lawyer shall seek leave of the Honourable Court to refer to all the processes filed so far in arguing the present application. 4. That I am a card-bearing member of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and the Immediate Past President of the Tertiary Education Institutions Network (TEIN) at Akrokerri College of Education, a student wing of the National Democratic Congress. 5. That the gravamen of this present application is that the executive members of the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the NDC (2nd Defendant herein) and all executive members of the various Regional Executive Committees (RECs) across the nation have all overstayed their mandate of four (4) years contrary to some relevant provisions of the Constitution of the NDC (1st Defendant). 6. That without re-election as guaranteed under the Constitution of the 1st Defendant, the executive members of the 2nd Defendant cannot lawfully act for and on behalf of the 1st Defendant without a valid renewal of their respective terms of office through re-election. 7. That though the term of office of all executive members of 2nd Defendant and other executives of the 1st Defendant have elapsed and/or expired as at January, 2014, they (the said executive members) have refused and/or failed to renew their mandate through re-election but are still occupying their respective positions, the expiration of their terms of office notwithstanding. 8. That I reiterate the deposition in the immediately preceding paragraph and further states that by reason of same the executive members of the 2nd Defendant lacked the necessary powers and/or mandate to act for and on behalf of the 1st Defendant and so any action and/or inaction done by and/or purported to be done by and/or on the authority of any of the executive members of the 2nd Defendant for and on behalf of the 1st Defendant is/are void ab and without any effect whatsoever. 9. That despite the foregoing depositions, the executive members of the 2nd Defendants have organized elections to be conducted at the national and various regional levels for the election into office of the executive members of the 1st Defendant and that of the Regional Executive Committees nationwide. 10. That the executive members of the 2nd Defendants notwithstanding the expiration of their respective terms of office have disqualified most card-bearing members of the NDC who have evinced an interest in contesting the said elections to be conducted at the National and Regional levels on the strength of the Guidelines For The Election Of The Party Executive Officers Of The NDC For 2014 though the said Guidelines lacks the necessary legitimacies having been made without the requisite legal mandate. 11. That the executive members of the 2nd Defendants purporting to act for and on behalf of the 1st Defendant have willfully failed and/or refused to observe the provisions of the Constitution of the 1st Defendant and willfully made the said Guidelines For The Election Of The Party Executive Officers Of The NDC For 2014 without any legal mandate whatsoever and with a mischievous purpose of disqualifying some card-bearing members of the 1st Defendant. 12. That due to the fact that the respective terms of office of all the executive members of the 2nd Defendant have expired, it is only the Chairman of the Council of Elders of the 1st Defendant whose term of office is unlimited under the Constitution of the 1st Defendant and thereby reserves the absolute right to act for and on behalf of the 1st Defendant in the wake of occurrences such as the lapses complained about in respect of the expiration of the respective terms of office of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. 13. That I have attached to this application a copy of the Constitution of the 1st Defendant and mark same as Exhibit “IGIT-1” 14. That I have also attached to this application a copy of the said “Guidelines For The Election of Party Executive Officers of the NDC for 2014” and mark same as Exhibit “IGIT-2” 15. That if the executive members of the 1st Defendant are not restrained from conducting the said National Executive Committee (NEC) and the Regional Executive Committee (REC) elections until the proper procedures are followed, a lot of injustice will be done to the Applicant and several other card-bearing members of the National Democratic Congress (NDC). 16. That by the grant of this application, the Defendants will be restrained from performing an act which will eventually render the determination of the instant suit an empty one. 17. That the Defendants will not suffer any inconvenience and/or disadvantage if the present application is granted; rather the applicant and other card-bearing members of the 1st Defendant will suffer a lot of damage which cannot in anyway be compensated. 18. That the present application is of such extreme urgency that the grant of same will better serve the ends of justice. 19. That in the premises, I swear to this affidavit in support of the motion. SWORN AT KUMASI THIS ……………… DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014. …………………………. DEPONENT BEFORE ME COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS THE REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT, KUMASI/ASHANTI IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SUIT NO:........................................................... NJONOLAH LINUS ) --------------- PLAINTIFF IMMEDIATE PAST TEIN PRESIDENT ) OF THE AKROKERRI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ) CARD BEARING MEMBER OF THE NDC ) H/NO. 17, MANSO ATWEDIE WITHIN THE ) AMANSIE – WEST CONSTITUENCY. ) VERSUS 1. THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS (NDC) ) PER THE NATIONAL CHAIRMAN, ) THE NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS, ACCRA. ) 2. THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ) -------------- DEFENDANTS OF THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS (NDC) PER THE NATIONAL CHAIRMAN, ACCRA. ) CERTIFICATE OF IDENTIFICATION OF EXHIBITS PURSUANT TO ORDER 20 RULE 14 OF C.I. 47 I, ………………………………………………………………, a Commissioner for Oaths hereby certifies that the following documents annexed to the affidavit in support of the present application by the Applicant herein sworn before me on the …………………. day of September, 2014 were identified by me. 1. The Constitution of the National Democratic Congress marked as Exhibit “IGIT-1” 2. The “Guidelines For The Election of Party Executive Officers of the NDC for 2014” marked as Exhibit “IGIT-2” DATED AT KUMASI, THIS DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014 …………………………………… COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SUIT NO:........................................................... NJONOLAH LINUS ) --------------- PLAINTIFF IMMEDIATE PAST TEIN PRESIDENT ) OF THE AKROKERRI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ) CARD BEARING MEMBER OF THE NDC ) H/NO. 17, MANSO ATWEDIE WITHIN THE ) AMANSIE – WEST CONSTITUENCY. ) VERSUS 1. THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS (NDC) ) PER THE NATIONAL CHAIRMAN, ) THE NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS, ACCRA. ) 2. THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ) -------------- DEFENDANTS OF THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS (NDC) PER THE NATIONAL CHAIRMAN, ACCRA. ) STATEMENT OF CASE My Lord, the Applicant shall rely on all the depositions contained in his affidavit in support of the application and all the material averments more particularly contained in the Applicants statement of claim. My Lord, with the greatest reverence to the court, established authorities require of an Applicant in an application for Interlocutory Injunction to prove a prima facie case by establishing that the Plaintiff/Applicant’s case is not frivolous or vexatious on the face of the pleadings and that the Applicant has a legal claim against the Defendant/Respondent. My Lord may respectfully refer to these authorities on these principles of law: 1. In the case of Centracor Resources Ltd. v. Boohene and Others (1992-93) GBR 1512 CA, it was held that: “Where a plaintiff in an application for interlocutory injunction could not show that the legal right sought to be protected really existed or where either party would suffer great disadvantage, which could not be adequately compensated in damages, it would be permissible in such case to consider the relative strength of the parties’ cases. Hubbard v. Vosper (1972) 1 All ER 1023, Baiden v. Tandoh (1991) 1 GLR 98, Vanderpuye v. Nartey (1977) 1 All GLR 428, CA referred to.” Also in the case of The Republic v. H. C. Fast Track I, Accra (2010) 26 M.L.R.G. 161 S.C. at 167, it was held that: “An interlocutory injunction is an equitable remedy and it is unimaginable that a court of equity would allow its effect to permit a party to perform an illegal act and to shield the party from the consequences of the breach of a statute. Even a contract to perform an illegal act will be declared void by the courts.” Per Date-Bah, JSC [p.177] lines. 35-40 2. In the case of Owusu v. Owusu-Ansah and Another (2007-2008) SCGLR 870, it was held that: “The granting or refusal of an injunction is at the discretion of the trial court but that discretion has to be exercised judiciously. And whilst agreeing with counsel for the co-defendant-appellant that in an interlocutory application for interim relief, the trial court ought to refrain from expressing an opinion on the merits of the case before the hearing, this does not absolve the trial court from considering the material before it in order to guide it to either grant or refuse the application. The fundamental principle in applications for interim injunction is whether the applicant has a legal right at law or in equity, which the court ought to protect by maintaining the status quo until the final determination of the action on its merits. This could only be determined by considering the pleadings and affidavit evidence before the court. In the instant case, the Court of Appeal applied the guiding principle and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had a better claim to the land and accordingly set aside the order of interim injunction.” See also: Vanderpuye v. Nartey (1977) 1 GLR 428 at 432; Pountney v. Doegah (1987-88) 1 GLR 111; Thorne v. British Broadcasting Corporation (1957) WLR 1104; and American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. (1976) 1 All ER 504, HL cited. Per curiam. We cannot fault the Court of Appeal for coming to that conclusion. For here is a case in which the pleadings, affidavits and supporting documents disclosed evidence in support of the applicant’s contention that the Toasehene is the owner of Twedie Lands and would therefore suffer greater hardship if restrained. The co-defendant claimed it would loose revenue if the plaintiff were not restrained from allocating portions of the land pending the final determination of the action. We do not see the basis of this complaint, as from the last arbitration in 1999 it was agreed that any revenue accruing from the Twedie Lands was to be shared between the Otumfuor, the Toasehene, the Asantehene and the Odikro of Twedie in proportions mentioned in the record. For that matter, we would say that the co-defendant ought to have asked for an account and his share of revenue accruing from Twedie Lands as the plaintiff admitted on the pleadings that he has been making grants of portions of the Twedie Lands rather than for an order of interim injunction against an overlord disposing of vacant land. In any event, the Court of Appeal ….considered this question of hardship also and came to the conclusion that, on balance, the plaintiff would rather suffer greater hardship in respect of the land, which has been demarcated and earmarked for community use as durbar grounds.” 3. Thus in the case of Martey and Others v. Appeadu (No.2) (1992-93) GBR 300, it was held that: “Delay was a good ground for a court to refuse to grant an application for interim injunction and on the facts the trial judge ought not to have granted the application. It was the delay in the pending case and perhaps tension generated by the continued presence of both parties in the premises that necessitated the application. Whatever it was the blame did not lie at the doorstep of either party. See also Vanderpuye v. Nartey (1977) 1 GLR 428 distinguished.” 4. Thus in the case of Ekwam v. Pianim (No. 1) (1996-7) SCGLR 117, it was held that: “In deciding whether or not to grant an order of interim injunction, the court would consider the justness and convenience of the order. Considering the totality of the case, the applicant could not be denied the temporary relief sought by him for equality was equity.” 5. Also in the case of Mettle v. Lands Commission Part 1 (2008) 1 GMG 90 CA at p. 192, Her Lordship Justice Akoto Bamfo said the following about interlocutory injunctions: “Relief by way of interlocutory injunction is granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the parties during the period before the uncertainty would be resolved. The object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he would not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection, has however, to be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. See also: (1) Thorne v. British B. Corp. (1957) WLR 1104. (2) American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. (1976) 1 ALL ER 504 HL. (3) Republic v. Duayaw Nkwanta District Magistrate Grade II; Ex parte Nimo (1974) 1 GLR 136. (4) University of Cape Coast v. Anthony (1977) 2 GLR 21 Court of Appeal. (5) Adjei v. Foriwaa 1981 GLR 378. (6) Frimpong v. Nana Asare Obeng II (1974) 1 GLR 16. (7) Musicians Union of Ghana v. Abraham (1982-83) GLR 337. (8) Confor v. Kpodo (1969) CC 81. (9) Food Specialities Ghana Ltd. v. Technicas De Multi Construction SA (1987-88) 1 GLR 25, CA. (10) Odonkor v. Amartei (1987-88) 1 GLR 578, SC (11) Ampaabeng v. Edwey IX (1991) 1 GLR 169, CA (12) Ghana National Trading Corporation v. Social Security Pacific current (1976) 2 GLR 321. (13) Bilson v. Rawlings (1993-94) 2 GLR 413. (14) Gyingyi v. Bernard (1989-90) 1 GLR 87, Court of Appeal (15) Interim Executive Committee of the Apostolic Divine Church of Ghana v. Interim Executive Council (1984-86) 1 GLR 529, Court of Appeal (16) West Africa Enterprises Ltd. v. Symon Rybende & Son Distilleries, Rotterdam (1977) 1 GLR 44. (17) Annobil v. Annobil (1968) GLR 1080, (1969) Circuit Court 27. (18) In re Bob Kwame & Co. Ltd.; Gyingyi v. Bernard (1989-90) 1 GLR 87 Court of Appeal. (19) Seraphim v. Amua-Sekyi (1962) 1 GLR 328. (20) Nti v. Sunyanihene (1902) 2 GLR 118. (21) Ghana Cocoa Marketing Board v. Agbettoh (1984-86) 1 GLR 122, Court of Appeal. (22) PPP v. Attorney General (1971) 1 GLR 138. (23) Adj & Co. v. Kumaning (1982-83) GLR 1382, Court of Appeal. (24) Amoah v. West Africa Examinations Council (1971) 1 GLR 63. (25) Prophetess Thane II v. Prophet George (1977) 1 GLR 467, Court of Appeal. My Lord, these authorities emphasise: (a) Balance of convenience, (b) Balance of hardship, (c) Fairness, (d) Justice, (e) Justness (f) Either legal or equitable right which requires the protection of same by the court in the interim. My Lord, the gravamen of the Applicants application to the court for interlocutory injunction is that he shall suffer serious, immeasurable and/or irreparable injuries and/or inconveniences if the Defendants are not restrained in the interim from organizing the National Executive Committee and all the Regional Executive Committee elections until otherwise ordered and/or directed by the Honourable Court. My Lord, the gravamen of the Applicants claim against the defendants/respondents may be summarized and paragraphed as follows: (a) That per the provisions of the Constitution of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), the executive members of the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the NDC (2nd Defendant herein), and all other executive members of the various Regional Executive Committees (RECs) across the nation have all overstayed their mandate contrary to some relevant provisions of the Constitution of the NDC (1st Defendant). (b) That the executive members of the 1st and 2nd Defendants have failed to renew their mandate through re-election as guaranteed under the said Constitution of the National Democratic Congress (NDC). (c) That until the said executive members of the 2nd Defendants have their mandate legitimately renewed through re-election as guaranteed under the Constitution of the 1st Defendant, the said executive members of the 2nd Defendants cannot lawfully act for and on behalf of the 1st Defendant since they lack the necessary legal capacities so to act since January, 2014 when their legal mandate conferred on them to act for and on behalf of the 1st Defendant had elapsed and/or expired. (d) That contrary to the provisions of the Consritution of the 1st Defendant, the said executive members of the 2nd Defendant have continued to stay in office without the extension of their legal mandate through re-election thereby flouting the very Constitution of the 1st Defendant with impunity. (e) That the 2nd Defendant purporting to act for and on behalf of the 1st Defendant have organized National Executive Committee and Regional Executive Committee elections to be conducted for the election into office of the executive members of the 2nd Defendant and the Regional Executive Committee even though their mandate so to act has long expired. (f) That pursuant to the conduct of the said National Executive Committee and Regional Executive Committee elections, the executive members of the 2nd Defendant acting for and on behalf of the 1st Defendant have come with Guidelines For The Election Of The Party Executive Officers Of The NDC For 2014 which said document was also made without the necessary legitimacies and/or contrary to the Constitution of the 1st Defendant. (g) That the executive members of the 1st Defendant do not even have the power and/or authority under the Constitution of the 1st Defendant to make the said Guidelines For The Election Of The Party Executive Officers Of The NDC For 2014. (h) That despite the fact that the executive members of the 1st Defendant do not have the power and/or authority under the Constitution of the 1st Defendant to make the said Guidelines For The Election Of The Party Executive Officers Of The NDC For 2014, some card-bearing members of the party have been and/or are being disqualified on the strength of the said Guidelines For The Election Of The Party Executive Officers Of The NDC For 2014 despite the unlawfulness of the said document. (i) That the executive members of the 2nd Defendant acting for and on behalf of the 1st Defendant ought to be restrained from organizing the said National Executive Committee and Regional Executive Committee elections until all the factual and legal issues raised in the present suit are resolved by the Court in the utmost interest of justice. My Lord, the foregoing shows undoubtedly that there are very serious legal issues to be determined by the Honourable Court and that the legal right sought to be protected really exist which the court ought to protect by maintaining the status quo until the final determination of the action on its merits and so nobody and/or entity whatsoever including the 1st and 2nd Defendants should be permitted to do anything that will render the final determination of the suit a judicial exercise in futility. In addition, the disadvantage that the applicant will suffer if the Defendants/Respondents are not restrained cannot in anyway be adequately compensated in damages.The applicant relies on the judicial authority of Centracor Resources Ltd. v. Boohene and Others (1992-93) GBR 1512 CA, to fortify his submission on this point. With the greatest respect, my Lord, it is the belief of the Plaintiffs/Applicants herein that if the Defendants/Respondents, their agents, assigns, servants, workmen, person(s) acting through them are restrained and/or otherwise prohibited by an order of this Honourable Court from organizing the elections under siege and since the Honourable Court has the power and/or legal authority to make such an order until the final determination of the suit and/or otherwise expressly ordered by the Court coupled with the fact that there are very serious legal issues to be determined by the Court, it is our humble prayer that this application be granted in the utmost interest of justice in order not for the Defendants/Respondents to do anything that will make the whole proceedings a brutum fulmen. In support of this proposition, the applicant herein cites the authority of Odonkor v. Amartei (1087-88) 1GLR 578 where the Supreme Court had this to say: “the basic purpose of interim orders was, as much as possible, to hold the balance evenly between the parties, pending a final resolution of matters in difference between them, and also to ensure that at the end of the day the successful party did not find that his victory was an empty one, or one that brought him more problems than blessings…” My Lord, it is clearly not in doubt that not only the Plaintiffs/Applicants will suffer greater injuries and inconveniences should the defendants/ respondents, their agents, assigns, servants, workmen, person(s) acting through them be allowed to carry out the said unlawful conduct of the elections under siege. In fact, the Defendants/Respondents shall not suffer any loss since they have even overstayed their legal mandate and have done a lot of acts not sanctioned by the Constitution of the 1st Defendant, making the said acts and/or conduct on the part of the 2nd Defendant/Respondent purporting to act for and on behalf of the 1st Defendant a nullity. In the case of The Republic v. High Court (Fast Track I, Accra) (2010) 26 M.L.R.G. 161 S.C. at 167, it was held that: “An interlocutory injunction is an equitable remedy and it is unimaginable that a court of equity would allow its effect to permit a party to perform an illegal act and to shield the party from the consequences of the breach of a statute. Even a contract to perform an illegal act will be declared void by the courts.” Per Date-Bah, JSC [p.177] lines. 35-40 In this case, it is the submission of the Applicant that the court should not allow the Defendants/Respondents to perform an act contrary to the very Constitution that regulates the activities of the 1st and 2nd Defendants. My Lord, in the case of Pountney v. Doegah (1987-88) 1 GLR 111, it was held that: “on the pleadings P had a better claim to the disputed plot than D. Her claim was therefore not vexatious but had a legal basis. Since her legal right could be asserted either at law or in equity, the court could grant an injunction in protection of that right. The rule did not require P to establish a prima facie case; once the court had been satisfied that Ps case was not frivolous, the governing consideration was the balance of convenience. From the nature of the claim, pleadings, affidavits and all the documents filed, P was likely to suffer substantial and irreparable damage if the application was refused and she eventually succeeded at the trial….” With the greatest respect, the applicant herein has exhibited very vital documents to this application namely; the Constitution of the National Democratic Congress (Exhibit NL 1) and the said Guidelines (Exhibit NL 2) to demonstrate to the Court that the Plaintiff’s claim is not frivolous but with merit requiring the protection of the Court until the matter is finally disposed of. Finally, the applicant wishes to submit that the grant of this application will serve a very useful purpose as has been demonstrated in the foregoing, relying on the decision in the case of University of Cape Coast v. Anthony (1977) 2 GLR 21, to wit: “The granting or withholding of an injunction like all equitable remedies was discretionary and would not be granted if no object would be served by it.” My Lord, it is against this background that the Applicants humbly pray that the Defendants/Respondents, their agents, assigns, servants, workmen, person(s) acting through them be restrained from having anything whatsoever to do with the organization and/or conduct of the elections under siege until all the factual and legal issues raised on the pleadings are finally determined. Am most grateful my Lord. DATED AT “IN GOD I TRUST LEGAL CONSULT LTD.”, MILLENNIUM PLAZA, ASOKWA, KUMASI THIS 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, FELIX DATSOMOR LLB (Hons), BL. SLICITOR FOR THE PLAINTIFF Email: [email protected] LIC. NO.: AR 08548/14 CHAMBERS REG. NO: PP0001773/14 THE REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT, KUMASI. AND COPY TO THE DEFENDANTS HEREIN
Posted on: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:29:53 +0000