THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, GENERAL JURISDICTION “2”, ACCRA (RESPONDENT) EX-PARTE ALHAJI HALIDOU ABOUBAKAR (APPLICANT) [KING GEORGE ENTERPRISE INTERESTED PARTY] [2019]DLSC6581

THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, GENERAL JURISDICTION “2”, ACCRA (RESPONDENT) EX-PAR... [2019]DLSC6581

Date	2019-07-03
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/36/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLSC6581

ANSAH JSC (PRESIDING)

DOTSE JSC

YEBOAH JSC

MARFUL-SAU JSC

KOTEY JSC

FELIX QUARTEY FOR THE APPLICANT

JOHN F. APPIAH FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY/RESPONDENT

[2019]DLSC6581
																																						<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>HIGH COURT, GENERAL JURISDICTION “2”, ACCRA (RESPONDENT) EX-PARTE ALHAJI HALIDOU ABOUBAKAR (APPLICANT) [KING GEORGE ENTERPRISE INTERESTED PARTY]<o:p></o:p>[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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/36/2019&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 3RD
JULY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>FELIX QUARTEY 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">

JOHN
F. APPIAH FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>ANSAH JSC (PRESIDING), DOTSE
JSC, YEBOAH JSC, MARFUL-SAU JSC, KOTEY JSC<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:
115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>MARFUL-
SAU, JSC:-&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The applicant before us has invoked the
supervisory jurisdiction of this court under article 132 of the Constitution
praying that we do prohibit His Lordship Justice Daniel Mensah, sitting at the
High Court, General Jurisdiction Division, Accra from continuing to hear the
suit titled Alhaji Halidou Aboubakar v. King George Enterprise, suit no.
AL/120/2010. The basis of applicant’s case is that the said Judge has shown
open bias against him and his lawyer during the trial. <o:p></o:p>We observed that even though applicant failed to
clearly set out the grounds of the application as required by rule 61 (2) of
the Rules of this Court, the main grounds may be deduced from the affidavits in
support of the application as follows: -<o:p></o:p>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That when the trial court went to the
locus on the 21st January 2019, the driver of the Interested Party
herein approached the Judge and introduced himself as an indigene of the town,
where the Judge is the Paramount Chief. The said driver further informed the
Judge that the Managing Director of the Interested Party was his boss.<o:p></o:p>(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That following above incident the Judge
became prejudiced against the applicant for which reason an application was
filed praying the Judge to recuse himself.<o:p></o:p>(c) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That during the hearing of the
application the Judge refused to adjourn the case for an affidavit in
opposition filed by the Interested Party to be served on applicant. That the
Judge having failed to record the non-service of the affidavit in opposition,
heard the application and dismissed same, ruling that he has not shown any bias
against the applicant.<o:p></o:p>(d) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Lawyer for applicant then petitioned
the Honourable Chief Justice against the conduct of the Judge and requested that
the suit be transferred from the court. That this petition was brought to the
attention of the Judge, but he insisted on continuing with the trial, till a
decision is taken by the Honourable Chief Justice.<o:p></o:p>(e) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That when applicant’s instant application
for prohibition was brought to the attention of the Judge, he became angry and
refused to record that the application for prohibition had been brought to his
knowledge.<o:p></o:p>The applicant contends that as a result of the
events narrated above, the Judge has been hostile to him and his Lawyer and
shown open bias to the extent that the Judge cannot be fair in the proceedings
before him.<o:p></o:p>The facts of the case briefly are that in 2010,
the applicant herein brought an action against the Interested Party for (i)
declaration that applicant is the lawful lessee and occupant of the premises in
House No. D 942/3, Derby Avenue, Accra; (ii) an order of perpetual injunction
restraining the interested party from interfering with applicant’s quiet
enjoyment and (iii) General Damages. In the course of the trial the court had
to visit the locus on 17th October 2017. <o:p></o:p>It later turned out that the court could not trace
the records of the said visit so a second visit to the locus was conducted on
21st January 2019.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It was on
the second visit that the driver of the interested party</main>