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 retirement and benefits. The key issues were whether the President could reject a judge's voluntary retirement request when impeachment proceedings were pending, whether a judge who reached mandatory retirement age was still subject to impeachment, and whether delays in impeachment proceedings should deny retirement benefits. The court held that the President acted constitutionally in rejecting the voluntary retirement, that judges who reach mandatory retirement age are no longer subject to impeachment, and that due to delays, the plaintiff was entitled to his retirement benefits. The court dismissed claims for damages but granted some of the requested reliefs. The judgment established important principles regarding judicial retirement, impeachment proceedings, and the rights of judges to their retirement benefits.
JUDGMENT
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:
i. 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.
ii. 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.
iii. 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.
iv. 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.
v. A declaration that the purported withholding of the plaintiff’s gratuity and retirement benefits since 1st March 2011 is unconstitutional.
vi. An order compelling the payment of plaintiff’s gratuity and retirement benefits with interest thereon at the commercial rate from 1st March, 2011.
vii. General damages for hardship, inconvenience and undue embarrassment suffered by plaintiff.
viii. 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 Just