The Court of Appeal on Tuesday ordered that an application for stay of proceedings filed on behalf of Mr Adamu Daramani, Member of Parliament for Bawku Central, be re-listed for hearing.
The Court of Appeal, in granting the application to re-list the stay of proceedings, noted that it was misled when the documents of a court bailiff, Mr Felix Quao Ofori, suggested that Mr Daramani's counsel Mr Yonni Kulendi had been served with court processes.
The court noted that evidence provided by the Chief Bailiff, Mr Frederick Osei Agyei, proved that hearing notice was refused on the court premises.
It, therefore, ordered the court registry to report the conduct of Mr Ofori to the appropriate authorities for appropriate disciplinary action to be taken against him.
The Court of Appeal further set aside the cost of GH¢500 awarded against Mr Daramani on August 10.
Although the court gave the green light for the hearing of the application to stay proceeding before it, it did not fix a date for hearing.
The CA on August 10, this year struck out the application to stay proceeding at the High Court, which had ordered the MP to vacate his seat because he held a dual nationality.
The MP, who had appealed against the High Court's decision, argued that the court lacked the jurisdiction and capacity to hear suit instituted by Mr Sumaila Biebel, a cattle farmer from Bawku.
Meanwhile, the state is prosecuting Mr Daramani for identity fraud but he has pleaded not guilty to charges brought against him.
The Court of Appeal comprising Mr Justice G.M. Quaye, Ms Justice Mariama Owusu and Mr Justice V.D. Ofoe dismissed the application for non-appearance of Mr Daramani's lawyer.
When the application to re-enlist the matter was heard on Tuesday before the Court of Appeal with the same panel, Mr Kulendi pointed out in his application that he was not served with the hearing notices.
The Court, therefore, summoned the Chief Bailiff, Mr Agyei to give evidence following Mr Kulendi allegation that he was not served with any hearing notices.
Mr Agyei said he was in his office when Mr Kulendi came to complain about the conduct of Mr Ofori.
The Chief Bailiff said Mr Ofori explained that he attempted to serve Mr Kulendi's clerk at the Commercial Court unit but the clerk refused.
According to Mr Agyei, Mr Kulendi's clerk refused to take the court processes because Mr Kulendi had warned him not to receive any documents.
When Dr Raymond Atugubah quizzed Mr Agyei on whether he was aware that many officials of the court served court processes at the court, he replied in the positive.
He, however, explained that because the court bailiffs used their own monies for transportation, whenever they met lawyers or litigants they served them in court.
According to Mr Agyei, some of the lawyers, however, refused to accept court processes, while they were on the court's premises.
Meanwhile, Mr Kulendi in an application for re-enlistment prayed the court to grant their application so that that matter would be heard on merit.
Dr Atugubah contended that they were only served on Monday at about 4:00pm and they filed their affidavit in opposition on Tuesday morning.
According to him they were served with two processes, namely, applications to stay proceedings and stay of execution.
This he contended had the same contents stressing that the two applications should be dismissed.
The Court of Appeal, however, stated that it was not likely that the same panel would sit on the two applications.