2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves a retired High Court judge who sued the Attorney-General seeking declarations regarding his voluntary retirement, the constitutionality of the rejection of his retirement notice, and the withholding of his gratuity and retirement benefits. The Supreme Court of Ghana ruled on several key issues: 1. The President acted constitutionally in refusing to accept the judge's voluntary retirement while impeachment proceedings were pending. 2. A judge who has reached compulsory retirement age is no longer subject to impeachment proceedings under Article 146 of the Constitution. 3. The plaintiff is entitled to his gratuity and retirement benefits from the date of his compulsory retirement, despite unresolved impeachment proceedings. 4. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages for hardship and inconvenience. The court emphasized that inordinate delay in disciplinary proceedings should not deprive a judge of accrued retirement benefits upon reaching compulsory retirement age. It also noted that the requirement of fair hearing within a reasonable time applies to disciplinary bodies set up by law. The judgment touches on important constitutional principles regarding judicial retirement, impeachment proceedings, and the rights of judges to their retirement benefits. It also highlights the need for expeditious handling of disciplinary cases involving public servants nearing retirement age.
ANIN-YEBOAH JSC:
The plaintiff herein, a retired justice of the High Court, has by his amended writ of summons dated the 9/4/2015 sued the Attorney-General for the following reliefs:
A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Articles 145(1) and (3) as well as Articles 127 and 58(2) of the Constitution, 1992, the purported rejection by the President of Ghana of the plaintiff’s notice of voluntary retirement as a justice of the Superior Court is unconstitutional, unlawful and of no effect.
The declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Articles 145(1) and (3) as well as Articles 127 of the Constitution, 1992, the notice issued by the plaintiff to the president informing the president of plaintiff’s voluntary retirement from the Judicial Service with effect from March, 2011 was valid and the president was obliged to accept same.
A declaration that the committee set up under Article 146 of the Constitution to investigate plaintiff having failed to discharge its mandate and some members of the said committee having either died or retired as Justices of the Superior Courts, lack the constitutional capacity to investigate any compliant against plaintiff.
A declaration that the plaintiff having compulsorily retired as a High Court Judge since 7th December 2011, is not subject to the processes prescribed for the removal of a Justice of the Superior Court under Article 146 of the Constitution.
A declaration that the purported withholding of the plaintiff’s gratuity and retirement benefits since 1st March 2011 is unconstitutional.
An order compelling the payment of plaintiff’s gratuity and retirement benefits with interest thereon at the commercial rate from 1st March, 2011.
General damages for hardship, inconvenience and undue embarrassment suffered by plaintiff.
Any further order(s) as to this Honorable Court may seem meet.
The facts of this case are devoid of controversy and relatively simple. The plaintiff was before his appointment to the High Court in 2003 a private legal practitioner. He served at various stations where he exercised the functions of a High Court Judge. In 2010, the honorable Lady Chief Justice received a complaint against him alleging judicial impropriety for delivering a judgment in December 2009 and subsequently purporting in March 2010 to render a different and or separate judgment in respect of the same case. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Chief Justice referred the matter to a Justice of the