Adjournments in Ghana case law.

The law generally is that where a suit is adjourned to a date for proceedings to be taken, it is that proceedings alone that must be taken.

THE REPUBLIC V. TSATSU TSIKATA SUIT NO. H2/6/2009 · 30 Nov 2016 [2016] SLR (CA) 1 · Court of Appeal · 2016 · DENNIS ADJEI JA

We are of the considered opinion that the trial High Court Judge failed to exercise her discretion fair and candid when she revoked the stay of proceedings granted by her and furthermore, delivered the judgment when the business for the day did not include any of them. In the case of Atta v. Nkrumah [1963] 1 GLR 432, it was held that where a matter is adjourned to a date for a certain proceedings to be considered it is that proceedings alone that should be considered unless the Order for adjournment provides otherwise.

THE REPUBLIC V. TSATSU TSIKATA SUIT NO. H2/6/2009 · 30 Nov 2016 [2016] SLR (CA) 1 · Court of Appeal · 2016 · DENNIS ADJEI JA

In the circumstances of this case, the trial court exercised its discretion wrongly on 9th July 2015 when it deprived the defendants the right to cross examine the plaintiff’s representative by refusing an adjournment sought by the former to engage new counsel and by not giving the defendant’s representative, the opportunity to further cross examine the plaintiff’s representative.

ADDO ATUAH & CO vs AFRICAN AUTOMOBILE LTD CIVIL APPEAL J4/55/2020 [2025] SLR (SC) 6 · Supreme Court · 2025 · LOVELACE-JOHNSON JSC

I understand the position of the law to be that all adjournments are subject to the court’s convenience. Trial courts are to exercise discretion in adjournments of cases pending before the courts. It is only when an adjournment is refused on illegitimate grounds that an appellate court is bound in the interest of justice to interfere. See MAHAMA v. SOLI [1976] 2GLR 99, HAIGGI v. COMMONWEALTH HAULAGE [1963] 1GLR 276, BUABENG v. FORKUO and OR [1970] CC 59 CA. Assuming on the facts of this case that the learned trial judge erred in his refusal to grant an adjournment to the applicant herein, his refusal to exercise his judicial discretion in favour of the applicant should not be construed as violation of the audi alteram partem rule. The applicant had notice of trial and there no rule of procedure which sets a time limit for parties to respond to hearing notice summoning their presence for trial. I think this ground of the application is misconceived and not supported by any case law or rule of procedure. A court of law is not bound to adjourn a case on the grounds that a lawyer for the party applying for the adjournment had officially written to the trial court to ask for an adjournment on stated grounds. The discretion to adjourn a matter in court is under the rules of court is vested in the court and if it is properly exercised, an appellate court will be slow in interfering with such discretion unless it is proved that the discretion was unfairly exercised.

THE REPUBLIC V. FAST TRACK HIGH COURT; EX PARTE SIAN GOLDFIELDS CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/8/2009 [2009] SLR (SC) 1 · Supreme Court · 2009 · ANIN YEBOAH JSC

The management of cases pending before a trial court, at all times, is in the hands of the trial judge and hence, a party cannot accuse a judge of a breach of the rules of natural justice where he spurns the opportunity given him to state his case.

MR. I . K. GYASI (SUBSTITUTED BY NANA BONSU ABABIO) VRS 1. NANA OFOSU SARPONG KUMAMKUMA & ANO CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/35/2024 [2026] SLR (SC) 21 · Supreme Court · 2026 · ASIEDU JSC

Where a case is called, as in the instant matter, and a party is present but refuses to participate in the trial for the reason that his lawyer was not present, the court has every power under its case management functions to deal with the case in any manner which the court deems fit including adjourning the matter to another date or by striking it out and hearing the other party who was ready to be heard on his claim.

MR. I . K. GYASI (SUBSTITUTED BY NANA BONSU ABABIO) VRS 1. NANA OFOSU SARPONG KUMAMKUMA & ANO CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/35/2024 [2026] SLR (SC) 21 · Supreme Court · 2026 · ASIEDU JSC