<<Print>>

Justice Ernest Obimpeh, a High Court Judge, has conceded making errors in a ruling in the case: The Republic v Lands Commission ex-parte Nii Tetteh Opremreh II. He has however, in a telephone interview yesterday, said that such mistakes are normal and have no effect if a party or the court draws attention it. In his ruling dated 7th June, 2013 at the Accra High Court, he said �I have looked at the application invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court to correct its own errors. I concede that instead of the court setting aside the applicants reply to the respondent�s statement of case in the substantive motion, the court rather set aside the applicant�s reply to respondent�s affidavits in opposition.� The judge added that, �The instant application for the obvious error to be corrected is therefore proper and the error is hereby corrected". The records, he said should show that, "it is the applicants reply to the respondent�s statement of case that is set aside.� The New Crusading GUIDE source at the court told us that in the course of his judgment, Justice Obimpeh made numerous findings of �fact�. According to our source these findings of fact shocked counsel for the applicant/appellant, Nii Tetteh Opremreh II because, in an affidavit in reply to the first respondent�s affidavit in opposition, he had denied all the allegations leveled against the Apantse We family. "How could something that we had denied be said to have been admitted, I have never seen such an awkward judgement in my life before", Nii Tetteh Opremreh II told this paper in an interview. Our source further told us that the evidential burden therefore shifted to the 1st respondent, and they could not discharge it. �On what basis then could the Justice Obimpeh make these findings of �fact�. This aroused the curiosity of counsel for Nii Tetteh Opremreh II. To satisfy his curiosity, council decided to apply to the court for certified true copies of proceedings for some particular days. It was then that he realised to his shock that he had been misrepresented in the judgement. The records revealed that the trial judge has set aside the affidavit in reply to the first respondents affidavit in opposition filed for and on behalf of the first respondent, contrary to the actual events and agreement between counsels that was recorded in the open court. In a related development, counsel for Nii Tetteh Opremreh brought an application for the judge to correct his own mistake. Lawyer for the Lands Commission who was represented did not oppose the application because it was the truth of what actually had happened in the open court. Justice Obimpeh had no option than to admit and correct the said mistakes. EFFECT That correction has the effect of sweeping away the entire findings of fact made by the judge in his judgement. This fundamental mistake according to our source has led to a miscarriage of justice. However, since this mistake was detected after the judgment, the Apantse We family has to wait for the Court of appeal to rectify this miscarriage of justice by setting aside the judgment. Meanwhile tongues are wagging on whether the mistake is genuine or deliberate to subvert the course of justice in this case? Senior legal people at the bench and at the bar are asking how the judge could review and set aside a judgement of a court of coordinate jurisdiction delivered 14 years ego by another High Court. When this paper contacted the Judge to ascertain the veracity or otherwise of the story, Justice Ernest Obimpeh said �It was the plaintiffs who even came up with an application that drew the court�s attention to the error�. Asked whether it was normal for such things to happen, he stated that, �If it is an obvious human mistake it has no effect; if any of the party�s or the court itself draws the attention of the court", adding that, "it�s a very normal thing. It�s a very normal thing. You see; you have so many processes before you and you are to consider all. We call them obvious mistake on the face of the records.�