|
RULING
DR. DATE-BAH JSC.
This is the unanimous ruling of
the court. The applicant has
sought to invoke the supervisory
jurisdiction of this court
pursuant to article 132 of the
1992 Constitution for an order
of prohibition, prohibiting Mr
Justice Simon Suurbare of the
High Court, Tamale from hearing
a motion filed by the respondent
in this case seeking the
applicant’s committal for
contempt. The applicant’s
grounds set out in his motion
paper are:
“(i) Friendship or unholy
friendship with the principal of
the respondent Abukari Chandiba
and his lawyer.
(ii) Animosity or
hostility towards the applicant.
(iii) Bias because
of the attitude towards the
applicant.”
The applicant supported his
motion with affidavit evidence
and the respondent in turn
countered that evidence with his
own affidavit evidence. Counsel
for the respondent, who was
accused by the applicant of
having conspired with Justice
Suubare, also swore to an
affidavit which was put in
evidence before us.
While undoubtedly, real
likelihood of bias in a judge is
ground for granting an order of
prohibition against him, such
likelihood has to be established
on the basis of facts duly
proved. In our view, the
affidavit evidence adduced by
the applicant in this case
woefully failed to prove the
facts relied on to establish the
allegations of hostility against
the applicant and personal
friendship between the judge and
counsel for the respondent which
were made against the learned
High Court Judge.
The evidence sought to be relied
on was circumstantial. We do
not consider it necessary to set
out the said circumstantial
evidence in full. Suffice it to
say that it was based on the
previous ruling of the judge in
an application for contempt of
an order of a district court and
on alleged early morning meeting
between counsel for the
respondent and the learned High
Court Judge; and finally on an
alleged telephone conversation
between the High Court Judge and
counsel for the respondent. In
our view, it was not of
sufficient weight to establish
proof on the balance of
probabilities that the judge was
a friend of the respondent’s
counsel and that he was hostile
towards the applicant. The
allegation made that one Abukari
Chandiba was also a friend of
the judge we did not find
relevant to the issue of
controversy.
Accordingly, we would summarily
dismiss the application to
invoke the supervisory
jurisdiction of this court to
prohibit Mr Justice Suurbare
from hearing the contempt
proceedings that the applicant
is apprehensive of. In our view
the applicant has not proven his
case.
W A ATUGUBA
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT
MRS GEORGINA WOOD
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT
DR S K DATE-BAH
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT
J ANSAH
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT
S K
ASIAMAH
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT
COUNSEL:
Mr A A Luguterah for applicant.
Mr A Y Seini for respondent.
|
