February 28, 2024
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Supreme Court decision arises from Anas Aremeyaw Anass attempt to use certiorari to quash a High Court judgment that dismissed his defamation claims against Kennedy Ohene Agyapong. After a petition from Agyapongs counsel, the then Chief Justice directed Justice Eric Baah JA, who had begun hearing the part-heard matter, to continue to conclusion under section 104 of the Courts Act. Anas argued the judge lacked jurisdiction and that the judgments language revealed apparent bias, pointing to passages describing his investigative work and conduct. The majority (Asiedu JSC, joined by Prof. Mensa-Bonsu JSC, and a concurring opinion by the Chief Justice) held that Article 139(1)(c) and section 104 validly authorized the judge to sit and continue the case, that the challenged language reflected evaluation of evidence within a defamation context, and that certiorari is reserved for patent, fundamental errors. Two justices (Kulendi and Amadu JJSC) dissented, finding the language demonstrated bias and a breach of natural justice, but the application was ultimately dismissed.
ASIEDU JSC:
[1]. INTRODUCTION
My lords, the instant application seeks to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this court
under Article 132 of the Constitution, 1992, section 5 of the Courts Act, 1993 Act 459 and
rule 61 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996, CI.16, for an “order of certiorari directed at
the High Court (General Jurisdiction 11), Accra, to bring into this honourable court for the
purpose of being quashed, the judgment of the High Court dated the 15th March 2023.
The application is premised on basically two main grounds:
(1). Absence of jurisdiction and, (2) Apparent or real likelihood of bias and impartiality on
the part of the judge.
The application is supported by a twenty-six-paragraph affidavit. It is also opposed by an
eighteen-paragraph affidavit filed by the Interested Party.
[2]. FACTS
The applicant in this matter issued a writ of summons against the Interested Party
(hereinafter referred to as the Defendant) in the High Court, Accra on the 20th November
2018 for:
(a). General damages for libel contained in the Defendant’s (Interested Party)
publications indorsed on the writ of summons.
(b). Aggravated damages arising from libel published by the Defendant of the Plaintiff in
the sum of Twenty-Five Million cedis (GH₵25,000,000.00).
(c). Costs
The Defendant entered appearance and filed a statement of defence. The case was heard
and the learned trial judge gave judgment on the 15th March 2023 wherein he dismissed
the claims of the Applicant against the Defendant. Then, on the 12th day of June 2023,
the Applicant filed the instant application against the Defendant herein for the reliefs
stated in the application.
[3]. GROUNDS FOR THE APPLICATION:
As stated above, the applicant urges two main grounds for this application. These are:
(1). Absence of jurisdiction and (2). Apparent or real likelihood of bias and impartiality on
the part of the judge. These grounds will be examined one after the other.
[4]. ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION:
The Applicant, at paragraph 13 of the supporting affidavit referred to exhibit FAA.4 and
stated that the said exhibit is the court notes of 1st December 2021 in which Justice Gifty
Addo ordered the adoption of the proceedings. I have examined the said exhibit FAA.4
and it does not say what the applicant attributes to it. Exhibit FAA.4 is a court note dated
1st December 2021. It shows that on that date Justice Eric Baah JA. sat on the case. The
parties failed to appear in co