Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
March 3, 2023
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Before me is an application seeking that I recuse myself from further hearing the instant suit.
I have examined the papers filed in support of and against the instant motion and I must state forthwith that I deny in no uncertain terms all the allegations levelled against me in the Respondents/Applicants (Applicant) Affidavit in support. I state emphatically that the said allegations are not only false but totally unfounded.
Some of the allegations however deserve to specific responses as I consider the same grave and an attempt to impeach my integrity.
The first relates to the Applicant’s claim that I have withheld this Court’s Ruling dated the 24th of October, 2022, probably in a deliberate attempt to prevent them from appealing same. The said Ruling was in respect of the Applicant’s Motion for leave to cross-examine Nii Obuor Friedman Afful and to subpoena the authors of Exhibits SFA1 to SFA4 filed on the 6th of June, 2022.
The record will show that the said application was vehemently opposed by the Applicants/Respondents (Respondents). However, this Court upon hearing both parties in a short ruling which was read in open Court granted the Application and ordered the authors of the Exhibit SFA1 – 4 attached to the Respondent’s Affidavit in opposition filed on the 4th of April, 2022 to appear before this Court to be cross-examined by Applicants.
The Applicants have since applied for and obtained a copy of the said Order. Their complaint however is that they have still not received a copy of the said Ruling.
First, an examination of the Applicants said Motion and supporting affidavit filed on the 6th of June, 2022 will reveal that it is completely false for the Applicants to contend that this Court left out one Nii Obodai Nai IV and a Nii Yemo Din in its Order granting the said Application. This is because apart from the fact that the Applicants never mentioned these persons in their Motion paper and/or supporting affidavit as part of the persons they sought to cross-examine. It is clear from Exhibits SF1 to SF4 that the said Nii Obodai Nai IV and Nii Yemo Din neither authored nor co-authored any of the said documents (i.e. SF1-SF4). It therefore cannot be true that the Applicant’s Motion was partially granted.
Now, with regards to the Applicants insinuation that I have withheld the said Ruling allegedly in a deliberate attempt to prevent them from appealing same, I think the Respondents own Exhibit B1 reveals the malicious nature of their claims. I
AI Generated Summary
Justice Akua Sarpomaa Amoah considered an application by Respondents/Applicants to recuse herself from further hearing an ongoing High Court suit. The Applicants alleged she withheld a written ruling delivered on 24 October 2022 to thwart an appeal, partially granted their earlier motion by omitting two individuals, and declared in open court that she was under pressure from the Respondents, implying ex parte conversations. The judge explained that the 24 October ruling, read in open court, granted Applicants’ motion to cross-examine and to subpoena the authors of Exhibits SFA1–SFA4, and that the failure to retrieve the written ruling was due to a laptop malfunction affecting multiple rulings, not misconduct. She categorically denied ever stating she was under pressure and highlighted the absence of proof. Reiterating that judges have authority to make necessary case-management orders and that mere refusal to accede to a party’s requests is not evidence of bias, she nevertheless granted the recusal to preserve confidence, referring the docket to the Chief Justice.