A Justice of the Court of Appeal has impliedly given the incoming Chief Justice, Georgina Wood, an urgent major reform exercise to undertake in order to "bring real meaning to the concept of fast-tracking of cases."

On Tuesday, Justice Jones Dotse called for the Court of Appeal Rules to be reviewed, just as has been done to the High Court Rules, in order to "avoid delays and unnecessary cost."

Giving the dissenting judgment in a high profile land dispute on Tuesday, the judge noted that the case before the Court of Appeal was not even about the substantive issue, but rather merely an appeal against an interim judgment given by a lower court. Yet, it took the Court of Appeal almost two years to give its ruling, for the substantive case to revert to the trial court for continuation.

"It has taken one year, 11 months, in the process the substantive suit," which is even before the Fast Track Division of the High Court, Justice Dotse noted, "has been stalled. It's indeed a sad commentary on our procedural rules in this court," he stressed.

The rules of the Circuit and High Courts have been substantially reformed and replaced by the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules), 2004, (CI47). The new rules now provide for, among other things, a speedy disposal of interlocutory appeals from the District Court level to the High Court. The overriding objective of the new rules is to expedite the delivery of justice.

However, the Court of Appeal still has to rely on its old slow track rules, Court of Appeal Rules, 1997, (CI 19), which has placed severe checks on the full effect of CI 47, especially once a party lodges an interim appeal before the appellate body.

The Tsatsu Tsikata case at the Fast Track Court is a classic example of the kind of procedural traffic jam that still clogs the wheels of justice despite the expansion of the judicial highway through CI 47 and the automated system.

Justice Dotse thinks the reform process should have been extended further up the court hierarchy. "I'm of the opinion that the time is ripe for such an exercise to be done. I’ll therefore advocate for a review of the Court of Appeal Rules to bring them in line with the rationale behind the passage of CI 47," so as to speed up the delivery of justice and avoid "delays and unnecessary expenditure."

The parties in the case before the court are La Palm Beach Ltd, Nii Kpobi Tettey-Tsuru (La Manste), as plaintiffs, and Beach View Property Ltd, Cypress Investments Ltd, Law Trust Company and Nii Adjei Boahene II (Head, Nmati Abonase Quarter), J.B. Danquah Adu (MP) and others as defendants.

The case in dispute is over a large piece of land next to La Palm Royal Hotel, which the two main contending parties, La Palm Beach Ltd and Beachview Properties Ltd (succeeded by Cypress Investments Ltd) were both claiming ownership of. Both have spent substantial sums of money to acquire the property from various sources for investment in the hospitality industry.

La Palm sought for an interim injunction to restrain the other party from continuing with its new development on the land - where La Palm, which has occupied it since 1995, has its septic tanks and security posts - until the substantive case has been disposed of.

The injunction was granted by Justice Gertrude Torkornoo at the Fast Track High Court. But the defendants immediately appealed against it. It was this that took two years for the Court of Appeal to rule on.

In its split decision, the three-man appellate court presided by Justice Ankama, allowed the appeal in a majority ruling, thereby setting aside the injunction and directing that the case should continue but before another judge.

But, Justice Dotse gave a dissenting opinion that the injunction must remain. However, in concluding his opinion, he took time to critique the slow process of the judiciary, specifically at the appellate level.

"It is my candid view that we need to fast-track and expedite the wheels of justice," Justice Dotse said on Wednesday.

The plaintiff/respondents, La Palm and the La Mantse, were represented by Asare Otchere-Darko of Ampem Chambers, and the defendants/appellants by Nsiah Akuetteh of Nsiah Akuetteh and Co.

Source: The Statesman