Evidence
But Mr Justice Apau, in granting leave to Mr Anku, said Mr Anku had provided evidence from the 37 Military Hospital indicating that he had fallen sick and been given a 14-day sick leave.
On the reasonableness of the defence as indicated by Mr Amidu, Mr Justice Apau said that would be determined when it was filed and subsequently adjourned the case to February 4, 2016.
In the substantive case, Mr Muhammed claims that the review decision of the Supreme Court that ordered Woyome to refund the money to the state was given in excess of the jurisdiction of the court and was, therefore, in violation of the Constitution and the Courts Act.
Lack of jurisdiction
It is the contention of Mr Muhammed that the review court did not have the jurisdiction to give the judgement and the consequential orders that were made.
“It is the submission of the plaintiff that the review bench of the Supreme Court assumed a jurisdiction it did not have in order to give judgement in that case,” he averred.
He further contends that “the assumption by the review bench of the jurisdiction to do substantial justice for all is unconstitutional, an illegality that undermines the Constitution and the rule of law which, if not checked, could lead to chaos and uncertainty in the administration of justice generally, and particularly in the exercise of the jurisdiction of this court”.
(Selorm) | 
(Nana Kwesi)