I have heard the submissions for and against the motion filed by the Applicants on 7 June, 2022. The Applicants are seeking the determination of arbitrator’s jurisdiction in this case. I have gone through the documents filed in this application for and in opposition to the application.
First, of all, counsel for the Applicants filed supplementary affidavit in support of the motion on 1 July, 2022. It was filed without the leave of the court. Orders 19 and 20 of CI.47 do not make provision for supplementary affidavit. Therefore, if it becomes necessary for a party to file same, the party must seek the leave of the court under the inherent jurisdiction of the court. This was not done in this case. I will therefore, not attach any weight to the said supplementary affidavit. It is the law that filing a process not warranted by the rules of court is a nullity. The supplementary affidavit is not filed as of right.
See: IDDRISU v. AMARTEY  SCGLR 670
The next issue I …