The Winneba High Court on Monday 20th July, 2020 presided over by His Lordship Justice Aboagye Tandoh at the sitting adjourned to Monday 27th October, 2020 a case brought before it by an applicant, Dr Kaakyire Duku against the University of Education Winneba (UEW).
It would be recalled that on the 13th of May, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled on a certiorari application filed by Dr Kaakyire Duku Frimpong seeking to quash the Winneba High Court ruling on 18th November, 2019. The Supreme Court remitted the case to the Winneba High Court for the determination.
Dr Kaakyire Duku had filed an application challenging the powers of the Vice Chancellor to nominate three Professors to contest for the Pro-VC elections. He also challenged the legitimacy of the election.
His Lordship Justice Aboagye Tandoh during the hearing made two observations:
1) that the docket on the case had been taken to the Registrar of the Appeals Court, and that it was his understanding that the applicant had lost the appeal.
He said that the file was returned to him only this morning. Upon his check however, most of the document on the file were messed up.
His Lordship, therefore,made an appeal to the Lawyers involved in the case to give him soft copies of their written addresses filed on or before 27th July, 2020.
In the related development, the Winneba High Court also adjourned the contempt application filed by Dr Kaakyire Duku against the University of Education Winneba, The Vice Chancellor, The Registrar, The Librarian to October 2020 for hearing.
*Antics from Council of Applicant*
In his usual antics, Counsel for the applicants, Afenyo Markin retorted questioning why the case had been adjourned to that far. He remarked that the case could be taken to 2021 but the truth will still come out, a cheeky language conveniently grossed over by the Court.
He actually gave an impression of knowing more than the Judge and Counsel on the other side Paa Akwesi Abaidoo who are his seniors at the bar by decades.
His fanciful insistence that those cited for contempt should go into the dock because it is a criminal case, exposes him to ridicule.
It is note that his description of respondent as contemnors also exposes his warp understanding of the law. It so very elementary in law that, a person charged with criminal offence is referred to as accused not contemnor. This charge, contemnor is used only after an accused has been convicted. His conduct on the could only be described as a session of exposé on his lack of legal rudiments and of course competent at the bar.
