For reasons not apparent on the face of the record, this judicial promise by Okunnor J, that he would provide the reasons for dismissing the claim, never came to be honoured. Again, regrettably, it took another two decades for the Court of Appeal to set aside Okunnor decision, on the ground that when he took over the case from a J’s previous judge; he failed to formally adopt the proceedings before pronouncing the decision complained of. The appellate court consequently ordered a de novo hearing. When the parties appeared before the new trial judge Debrah J for a fresh hearing as ordered, the learned judge, relying on an agreement of the parties, decided to dispose of the entire action by way of legal arguments only. He neither adopted the proceedings nor took fresh evidence from the parties and their witnesses. He ruled: the court will take formal evidence in this matter. The “As things stand now, Plaintiff says he wants to go by relying on documentary evidence. The Court has no option but to go by the way the parties have directed. On the defendants, they must react to what counsel for the plaintiff is going to file and come back for a date. The filing must be within a week from 2 weeks. Counsel on the other side must comply within 2 weeks.” Thus, on the 16th of March 2010, the court gave judgment dismissing the claim, in the words of the trial judge: Respondent’s “as basically unexisting.” The Respondent, who was aggrieved by the results, successfully appealed the decision. It is the appeal against that decision of the Court of Appeal, which we now proceed to hear and pronounce on. We take issue with the trial judge on this stand, particularly, in relation to the hapless statement that it had no option but to bow to the dictates of the parties to dispose of the case by legal arguments only. Clearly, given the state of the pleadings, the was to ensure that all the factual judge’s primary responsibility issues were resolved on the basis of the evidence. As the trier of facts, he should
For reasons not apparent on the face of the record, this judicial promise by Okunnor J, that he would provide the reasons for dismissing the claim, never came to be honoured. Again, regrettably, it took another two decades for the Court of Appeal to set aside Okunnor J’s decision, on the ground that when he took over the case from a previous judge; he failed to formally adopt the proceedings before pronouncing the decision complained of. The appellate court consequently ordered a de novo hearing. When the parties appeared before the new trial judge Debrah J for a fresh hearing as ordered, the learned judge, relying on an agreement of the parties, decided to dispose of the entire action by way of legal arguments only. He neither adopted the proceedings nor took fresh evidence from the parties and their witnesses. He ruled: “As things stand now, the court will take formal evidence in this matter. The Plaintiff says he wants to go by relying on documentary evidence. The Court has no option but to go by the way the parties have directed. On the defendants, they must react to what counsel for the plaintiff is going to file and come back for a date. The filing must be within a week from 2 weeks. Counsel on the other side must comply within 2 weeks.” Thus, on the 16th of March 2010, the court gave judgment dismissing the Respondent’s claim, in the words of the trial judge: “as basically unexisting.” The Respondent, who was aggrieved by the results, successfully appealed the decision. It is the appeal against that decision of the Court of Appeal, which we now proceed to hear and pronounce on. We take issue with the trial judge on this stand, particularly, in relation to the hapless statement that it had no option but to bow to the dictates of the parties to dispose of the case by legal arguments only. Clearly, given the state of the pleadings, the judge’s primary responsibility was to ensure that all the factual issues were resolved on the basis of the evidence. As the trier of facts, he should