It was also the considered view of the court that the evidence on record showed that the case was not listed for hearing, but strangely it was heard on the blind side of the caveators, with the presiding judge striking out the said caveat for want of prosecution and granting the letters of administration to the interested parties.
According to Justice Dotse, the irregular manner in which the case was determined pointed to the fact that the presiding judge “appeared to be biased against the applicants”.
The Judicial Council has absolved a Justice of the Court of Appeal, Justice Emmanuel Ankamah, from any wrongdoing in a case involving the estate of a deceased pastor.
After investigations, the Judicial Council found no case of impropriety against Justice Ankamah, and further came to the conclusion that the Justice of the Court of Appeal acted within the confines of the law and in the rightful exercise of his discretion as a judge.
Why the investigations?
On June 6 this year, the Supreme Court referred Justice Ankamah — who presided over the estate dispute in 2022 at the Tema High Court — and the then Registrar of the High Court, Sebastian Agbo, to the Chief Justice for investigations and possible sanctions.
A five-member panel of the apex court made the referral after it quashed a decision by Justice Ankamah, which struck out a caveat challenging the letters of administration for the sharing of the properties in the estate of the late Rev. Emmanuel Dorgbadzi.
The Supreme Court, in the referral, accused Justice Ankamah and the then Registrar of acting in a manner that brought the administration of justice into disrepute, describing their actions as a “shameful specie of conduct”.
Delivering his valedictory judgment, the venerable Justice Jones Dotse held that Justice Ankamah failed to give the caveators a hearing before striking out the caveat, and, therefore, the court breached the rules of natural justice.
It was also the considered view of the court that the evidence on record showed that the case was not listed for hearing, but strangely it was heard on the blind side of the caveators, with the presiding judge striking out the said caveat for want of prosecution and granting the letters of administration to the interested parties.
According to Justice Dotse, the irregular manner in which the case was determined pointed to the fact that the presiding judge “appeared to be biased against the applicants”.