By Janet Sesay
The main opposition, All people’s Congress (APC) has been ordered to pay Le4M to counsel representing National Reformation Movement (NRM) as compensation.
The High Court Judge, Komba Kamanda made the order following a submission by counsel for NRM, Hindolo Gevao. The submission was centered on a mistake of date contained in an affidavit filed by the APC contending that NRM members are not APC members. The year the affidavit was file indicates 2019 instead of 2020.
The mistake of date in the APC affidavit created a legal opportunity that the NRM counsel would waste no time premise his arguments. Gevao objected to the hearing of the APC affidavit on the grounds of mistake of date which describes as a “fatal mistake.” “There is no application made before the court dated 14th day of January 2020 but the affidavit that is before the court at the present date is dated the 14th day of January 2019 when there was no cause of action before the court,” Gevao argued. Counsel Gevao also submitted that for the APC motion to be heard in court the affidavit had to be credible and that information therein must be honestly and sincerely.
“The affidavit was sworn to one year before the action and the date that was sworn to and the date it was commission are two different dates,” Gevao argued. Counsel also contends that the date factor was the most important part of the affidavit and should not be considered as a mere mistake. “The court should not look at the date as a mere mistake, but should be treated very seriously,” counsel urged. He reminded the court that there was no cause of action before the court in 2019. “No cause of action exists in 2019 which the date is expressly stated hence an affidavit could not have been sworn to in 2019 for a cause that is pending in 2020,” Lawyer Gevao said. The NRM counsel rounded up his submission by referring to the date in the APC affidavit as “fatal” and that the document itself was irregular thus making a strong case for it to be thrown out of court with cost on the APC side.
Wara Serry Kamal represents the APC in the hearing. She told the court that she took responsibility for the mistake, but urged the court to discountenance it referring it as a “typographical error.” “The date the affidavit was sworn is correct which has 14th January 2020 but the date it was commissioned was the time the mistake took place as the date stated 14th January 2019,” she argued. Counsel Kamal also submitted that the date in the affidavit was a mistake and that it should not be used as a reason for not going into the merits of the argument they were in court for. In her argument, she cited rule 9 of the High Court Rules, 2001. The rules regulate the proceedings of High Court in Sierra Leone. The document, according to counsel, says counsels could be allowed to use their affidavit even there is a mistake adding that if the irregularity is more substantial than a clear date, the court should not nullify the proceedings because of a date. Counsel thus urged the court to treat the date as a mistake but also asked for a stand down so that the date in the affidavit could be adjusted for the matter to be heard in court.
Having heard arguments of the two sides, Justice Kamanda ruled in favour of plaintiff, the NRM. The learned judge directed counsel to treat such documents with respect and ensure that the facts are “checked” and “double-check” before filing papers in court.
In a related development, counsel Gevao during the day’s hearing presented the case for the NRM contained in a notice of motion dated 15th January 2020. However, objection in respect of the motion was raised by counsel for the defence, Wara Kamal. She argued that the high court lacks the jurisdiction to interprete the country’s constitution and that “purported” notice was “defective” and “irregular.” “The high court lacks the jurisdiction to hear the matter,” she emphasised. Defence counsel reminded the court that the plaintiff’s notice of motion was made pursuant to section 35(2) of the Sierra Leone Constitution No.6 of 1991.
“Section 124 of the 1991 Sierra constitution of Sierra Leone states that it is the Supreme Court that has the powers to enforce and interprete any provisions of the constitution,” she stressed. She also submitted that although the court had started the matte, it still had the jurisdiction to stop the matter and refer it to the Supreme Court.
At this point, Counsel for the plaintiff sought a date so that he could reply to the submissions of Counsel for the APC. The court upheld counsel’s application.
The matter comes up 24th January.