REPUBLIC v. SARAH CHINBUA & OTHERS

APALOO JA; This is an interlocutory appeal against the ruling of the High Court dated 8th March 2011. In the ruling the lower Court dismissed a motion praying that an earlier order that Sarah Chinbua the 1st Respondent/Respondent should surrender the Passport of Marie Chinbua (then a child) to the Police be discharged or varied.

The appellant filed two grounds of appeal against the ruling which we reproduce here;

1. “That the Learned Trial Judge misdirected himself in delivering a ruling which was clearly in violation of the provisions of the Children’s Act 1998 (Act 560) and against the best interest of the child.

2. That the Learned trial Judge took into consideration matters which were not before him in consideration of the appeal by visiting the sins of the Guardian on the Child.”

From the various documents filed in this interlocutory appeal, we have noticed and observed that the parties are at war with each other, litigating over various decisions delivered in respect of Marie Chinbuah now 19 years old. The multi litigations have involved the Department of Social Welfare, the Juvenile Court, on appeals to the High Court, further appeals to the Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court, and one application again to the Supreme Court. It appears to us that the underlying grievances include injured pride and feelings, and violations of rights. It is sad and disturbing to note that the Lawyers involved have not made it any easier for the parties and the child. Indeed the attacks have been mounted on all decision takers in the matter; and certain persons were also cited for contempt as well. The exposure of the child to these pieces of litigation invariably encouraged her to do the unthinkable. She slapped a Court Registrar who was enforcing a custody order. She has since apologized for that terrible misconduct. It is part of our duty to encourage the parties to end litigation. We have observed the notice of attainment of 18 years filed by the Solicitor for the Applicant but regret we are unable to act on it because Counsel had not sought leave to repudiate the proceedings as required under Order 5 Rule 3(2) of C1 47.

From the record, it came out that the applicant is the undisputed biological mother of Marie Chinbuah. The appellant Sarah Chinbuah is the Paternal Aunt of Marie. On 26th June, 2009 the District Juvenile Court granted custody of the child Marie Chinbuah to Elizabeth Nana Nketsia her biological mother. Sarah Chinbuah the auntie challenged the cu