Statement of facts:
Following the decision in Tuffour v. Attorney-General[2] by the Court of Appeal sitting as the Supreme Court, the plaintiff filed this writ at the Supreme Court against the Chief Justice, Apaloo. He sought to have the decision in Tuffour v. Attorney-General be quashed.
In the circumstances, Bilson raised a preliminary objection to the effect that there were two Justices on the bench hearing the present case who were on the bench that decided the very case he was seeking to set aside.
He contended that that was contrary to the principle of natural justice, specifically, nemo judex in cause sua.
- Whether or not the sitting of the two Justices amounted to a breach of the rule of natural justice?
1. The rule of natural justice has not been breached.
The court held that the Nemo judex in causa sua principle has three exceptions. It can be set aside through enactment (statutory exception). Also, a party can always waive off his objection. And the doctrine of necessity is another exception.
In the present case, there are only seven Justices at the Supreme Court. One of whom is Justice Apaloo who was sued in the case. And of the six others, if the two were removed from the case, there would be four only. The minimum number of adjudicators to sit on a case at the Supreme Court is five. If the two are not included, the wheel of justice would grind to a halt.
And it was a common law principle that it would be expedient for an “unqualified” Judge to sit than for justice delivery to come to a halt. Hence, the doctrine of necessity demanded that the two justices be included for justice delivery.
[1] Bilson v. Apaloo [1981] GLR 15-24
[2] Tuffour v. Attorney-General
