THE REPUBLIC v. HIGH COURT , ACCRA
2015
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
- ANSAH JSC (PRESIDING)
- DOTSE JSC
- ANIN YEBOAH JSC
- BAFFOE BONNIE JSC
- AKOTO- BAMFO (MRS) JSC
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure
2015
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The applicant sought a prohibition order against Justice Naa Adoley Azu, claiming a real likelihood of bias in her handling of the case AG Boadu v The Registrar, High Court & others. Despite pointing to various statements of the judge as evidence of bias, the court found that these did not demonstrate a real likelihood of bias. The court highlighted that prohibition orders are discretionary and require proof of such bias. As no sufficient evidence was provided to prove actual bias or a real likelihood of bias, the application was dismissed.
ANSAH JSC:
On 17-03-15 this court unanimously dismissed an application by
the applicant an order from this court to issue a prohibition order
against the trial judge to restrain her from proceeding to hear a
matter before her; we intimated to give our reasons for our ruling
later. We hereby proceed to do so now.
Pursuant to the provisions of article 132 of the 1992 Constitution,
the applicant herein moved this court for an order for prohibition
directed at the High Court, Court 23, Accra, presided over by Her
Ladyship Mrs. Justice Naa Adoley Azu, prohibiting her from
proceeding to hear the case entitled A.G. Boadu v The Registrar,
High Court & others, suit numbered BMISC 501/2014, pending
before her.
The grounds of the application as revealed by the motion paper are
that:
1.“There is a real likelihood of bias on the part of Her Ladyship Mrs.
Justice Naa Adoley Azu against the case of the defendants, as
shown by various statements of Her Ladyship the presiding judge
even before the commencement of the hearing of the case proper
indicating strongly that the defendants will not get a fair trial.
2. On the 27th November 2014, the 3rd defendant petitioned the
office of Her Ladyship the Chief Justice requesting that Her
Ladyship Justice Naa Adoley Azu be stopped from hearing the
matter and remitting the matter back to Court 8 for hearing by the
presiding judge; Her Ladyship the Chief Justice however responded
by a letter dated the 3rd November 2014 refusing the petition and
advising co-operation with the court for an expeditious and early
disposal of the matter;
3. The letter refusing the petition was signed by the First Deputy
Judicial Secretary for the Judicial Secretary and the letter indicated
that it had attached to it the order of transfer under the signature of
Her Ladyship the Chief Justice herself; however, the attachment
was not with the letter and therefore under the circumstances the
3rd defendants’ representative went to the Office of the Judicial
Secretary on several dates and times to get it but never got it to
date; however a hearing notice for the matter dated the 16th
December, 2014, was served on the 3rd defendant on the 19th
December 2014; however, hearing did not take place on that date
and the matter was adjourned to the 9th January 2015; the matter
was then adjourned for continuation of the hearing on the 16th
January 2015.”
The facts that led to the institution of the present application, as
rev