THE REPUBLIC vs. THE HIGH COURT, ACCRA EX PARTE: CONCORD MEDIA LTD ALFRED OGBAMEY [2011]DLSC2555

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE HIGH COURT, ACCRA EX PARTE: CONCORD MEDIA LTD ALFRED OGBA... [2011]DLSC2555

Date	2011-02-16
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J5/17/2010
Citation No.	[2011]DLSC2555

BROBBEY JSC (PRESIDING)

DOTSE JSC

YEBOAH JSC

ARYEETEY JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

EGBERT FAIBILLE JNR. FOR THE APPLICANT

ATTA AKYEA FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2011]DLSC2555
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE HIGH COURT, ACCRA<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE:&nbsp;&nbsp; CONCORD MEDIA LTD<o:p></o:p>ALFRED OGBAMEY<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J5/17/2010 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 16TH
FEBRUARY, 2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>EGBERT FAIBILLE JNR. FOR THE
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">

ATTA
AKYEA FOR THE RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

BROBBEY, JSC (PRESIDING)
DOTSE, JSC YEBOAH, JSC ARYEETEY, JSC AND GBADEGBE, JSC<o:p></o:p>

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

JUDGEMENT&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>

</div>ANIN&nbsp; YEBOAH JSC:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The supervisory jurisdiction of this court has been
invoked to prohibit the High Court, Accra from hearing the case intituled as:
suit № BD 6/2007: GHANA PORTS &amp; HARBOURS AUTHORITY &amp; ANOTHER V. CONCORD
MEDIA LIMITED &amp; ANOTHER and two contempt applications pending before
the same judge.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>In an affidavit supporting the application, the
second defendant to the suit, one ALFRED OGBAMEY, complains against the presiding
judge Mr. Justice Benson and catalogued several allegations of judicial impropriety
against the said judge.<o:p></o:p>The first allegation relates to a petition which he
lodged at the Chief Justice’s office out of which the Chief Justice advised the
learned judge to uphold the scales of justice evenly between the parties.&nbsp; The Chief Justice, however, did not transfer
the case from Mr. Justice Benson as requested by the applicants herein.<o:p></o:p>Subsequent to the above event, the deponent stated
in the affidavit that on one occasion when the case was called and their lawyer
was absent, the said judge made certain comments against the deponent to the
effect that he had sent “a bogus petition” to cause the delay of the case.&nbsp; He further deposed to the fact the learned
judge has described him as “a very cantankerous person”.<o:p></o:p>The applicants naturally view this comments as a
basis for alleging bias, ridicule and prejudice against them.&nbsp; They are of the opinion that given the
uncomplimentary remarks by the learned judge they would not get justice from
the court and pray this court for an order of prohibition to prevent the
learned judge Mr. Justice Benson from proceeding to hear the case.&nbsp; Annexed to the affidavit is a copy of the
petition which the applicants sent to the Chief Justice for her intervention.<o:p></o:p>The application has been opposed by the interested
party who is the plaintiff in the action at the High Court in which the second
applicant and the Concord Media Limited have been sued for damages for
defamation and other ancillary reliefs.&nbsp;
On the 30/04/2010, the learned judge himself swore to an affidavit in
which he stoutly denied all the damning allegations of judicial impropriety
leveled against him in the affidavit in support. Annexed to the affidavit is a
Certified True Copy of the record of proceedings dated the 14/12/2009 showing
the submissions of counsel for the interested party.&nbsp; The applicants filed a further affidavit in
reply on 14/07/2010 in which they raised concerns about the conduct of the
trial judge for swearing to an affidavit in answer to the application.&nbsp; The applicants complain that the learned
judge by doing so had descended into the arena of litigation and that this
conduct is a manifestation of the suspicion that he would be bias against the
applicants.<o:p></o:p>The practice in such applications is for a
registrar of the court sought to be prohibited in the case to swear to the affidavit
on behalf of the court.&nbsp; In contentious
matters where the facts are in issue, the superintending court may allow an
application for </main>