Accra, Sept. 23, GNA - Mr. Lawrence Animley, Registrar of the Greater Accra Regional House on Saturday dismissed allegation that the House has granted any injunction against Dr. Jo Blankson from holding himself up as the new Ga Mantse.

Speaking to the Ghana News Agency (GNA) in Accra, Mr. Animley said, "The Greater Accra House of Chiefs has not imposed any injunction against Dr. Jo Blankson, the new Ga Mantse."

"This issue is about a paramount stool and the House is yet to give ruling on whether it has the jurisdiction over such a matter before any motion of injunction can be considered," Mr Animley explained. The Registrar was responding to allegations published in the media, including the internet, that the court had granted an injunction against Dr Blankson from holding himself up as the Ga Mantse under the stool name, King Tackie Tawiah III, whereas no such injunction existed. Five persons: Dr. E. A Tackie, Mr. S. T Tackie, Mr. Kingsley Nii Teiko Tackie, Nii Armah Tackie and Mr. George Tackie have field a petition at the Regional House of Chiefs challenging the installation of Dr. Blankson as the new Ga Mantse.

The petition also cited Nai Wulomo, Numo Tete, and the head of the Nii Akropong III, for performing the installation ceremony. Daily Graphic report on the matter paraphrased Mr Willie Amarteifio, lead council for Dr. Blankson who made submissions at the court at Dodowa last Wednesday that the wide media publication of the non-existing injunction against their client had created erroneous impression among the general public.

Mr. Amarfio said some intellectual members of the society, who had been fed with the wrong information, had gone public to condemn their clients for disrespecting the law when, in fact, no such injunction had been granted.

He therefore, prayed the court to set the records straight, since nothing in its records indicated that an injunction had been granted against their clients.

"The application they filed is undated, unstamped, unmoved and ungranted...If your records show that there has been no service of a motion for an injunction and there is no evidence that this august House has granted an injunction, we will like the records to be set straight," he submitted.

Counsel, therefore, moved the court to strike out the motion on notice for an order of interlocutory injunction filed by the petitioners.

He noted that the motion, which was attached to the petition, had no stamp and date, adding that although no attempt had been made by the petitioners to move the motion, it was still pending on the records of the court.

Meanwhile, the petitioners have amended the original petition filed on July 19, 2006, to which the said motion was attached. Counsel for the respondents argued that since the motion sought to rely on the petition, which had been amended, there was no need for the motion to remain on the court's docket and, as such, it should be struck out.

The court adjourned the case to November 9, 2006.