MUSAH AMADU vs. MAHAMADU MOHAMMED [2007]DLSC2445

Date	2007-02-20
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO…
Citation No.	[2007]DLSC2445

ATUGUBA JSC (PRESIDING)

GEORGINA WOOD JSC

DR DATE-BAH JSC

ANSAH JSC

ASIAMAH JSC

MR A A LUGUTERAH FOR APPLICANT.

MR A Y SEINI FOR RESPONDENT.

[2007]DLSC2445
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >MUSAH AMADU<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MAHAMADU MOHAMMED<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT]<o:p></o:p>CIVIL
MOTION NO…<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE: 20TH FEBRUARY 2007.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;MR A A LUGUTERAH FOR APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

MR
A Y SEINI FOR RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

ATUGUBA
JSC (PRESIDING), GEORGINA WOOD JSC, DR DATE-BAH JSC, ANSAH JSC, ASIAMAH JSC<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>RULING<o:p></o:p>DR.
DATE-BAH JSC.&nbsp; This is the unanimous
ruling of the court.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The applicant’s grounds set out in his motion
paper are:<o:p></o:p>“(i) Friendship or unholy friendship
with the principal of the respondent Abukari Chandiba and his lawyer.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(ii) Animosity or hostility towards the
applicant.<o:p></o:p>(iii) Bias because of the attitude
towards the applicant.”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The applicant supported his motion with
affidavit evidence and the respondent in turn countered that evidence with his
own affidavit evidence.&nbsp; 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.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>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.&nbsp; 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.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The evidence sought to be relied on was
circumstantial.&nbsp; We do not consider it
necessary to set out the said circumstantial evidence in full.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The allegation made that
one Abukari Chandiba was also a friend of the judge we did not find relevant to
the issue of controversy.<o:p></o:p>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.&nbsp; In our view the applicant has not proven his
case.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>W
A ATUGUBA<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE
OF THE SUPREME COURT<o:p></o:p>MRS
GEORGINA WOOD<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE
OF THE SUPREME COURT<o:p></o:p>DR
S K DATE-BAH<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE
OF THE SUPREME COURT<o:p></o:p>J
ANSAH<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE
OF THE SUPREME COURT<o:p></o:p>S
K ASIAMAH<o:p></o:p>

JUSTICE
OF THE SUPREME COURT<o:p></o:p></main>