REPUBLIC v. ACHEAMPONG ALIAS NANA NYAN IV; EX PARTE NANA AFFUL EFFRIM IV

Justice Sarkodee addressed a summons by Isaac Annobil Acheampong (also known as Nana Nyan IV) to set aside leave earlier granted by Francois J during vacation for an application seeking an injunction in the nature of quo warranto. Acheampong’s counsel alleged multiple procedural irregularities: non-compliance with Order 59, r. 4(3), lack of endorsements under Order 38, r. 10, and the absence of the statement mandated by Order 59, r. 2(2), among others. Counsel conceded the first ground as curable; the judge rejected the affidavit endorsement objection as misconceived. Focusing on the absence of the statement, the court examined whether the defect was fundamental or a curable irregularity, citing McIntosh v. Simpkins, Alderson v. Palliser, Fishmongers’ Co. v. Donington Finance, In re Pritchard, Armar v. Armar, Attorney-General v. Levandowsky & B.A.S.E. Group, and Mosi v. Bagyina. Finding no prejudice and that the affidavit contained essential facts, the court held the defect was not fundamental. The objection failed; the application would be heard on its merits, and the summons was dismissed with costs of ¢50.00.