Businessman Richard Nii Armah Quaye (RNAQ)'s former wife, Joana Quaye, has petitioned the Chief Justice over what she describes as gross misconduct by the trial judge.

At the centre of the dispute is Justice Justin Dorgu, who delivered final orders in the case on January 20, 2026.

The full written judgment, however, surfaced three months later on April 20, 2026.

According to court records, the final orders covered property division, child custody and maintenance. Those orders triggered the three-month window for appeal.

Joana Quaye argues that while the orders were issued on January 20, the detailed reasoning behind them was not filed or made available until April 20.

By that time, the appeal window had expired a day earlier on April 19.

Her petition to the Judicial Council and the Chief Justice questions whether the timing denied her a fair opportunity to challenge the decision.

She contends that Justice Dorgu issued what he described as the conclusion of his judgment before writing the full decision, and only released the detailed reasoning after the appeal deadline had lapsed.

Her lawyers, Dame & Partners, have since filed an appeal.

In the petition, Joana Quaye argues that the judge’s actions effectively ambushed her legal rights. She says the sequence raises concerns about whether the conclusions were settled before the legal reasoning was fully developed.

She also alleges that the judgment was “serialised” in a manner that undermined her right to justice.

According to her, the process created what she describes as two versions of the court’s decision — one she was compelled to respond to without full context, and another disclosed too late to challenge.

She describes the development as unfair and deeply troubling, warning that such conduct risks bringing the judiciary into disrepute.

Joana Quaye is now demanding a full inquiry into Justice Dorgu’s conduct.

She is asking the Chief Justice and the relevant authorities to determine whether the delayed release of the full judgment constitutes judicial misconduct.

Her petition argues that the issue goes beyond her personal case. She says if left unchecked, such practices could threaten the rights of other litigants, especially women and vulnerable persons navigating the justice system.

The unfolding dispute has also intensified scrutiny of judicial processes, particularly questions of transparency, fairness and the constitutional right to appeal.

As the petition awaits action, the case is quickly becoming a major test of accountability within Ghana’s justice system.