- How prolonged litigation is denying citizens their rights, and what must be done to restore timely justice
ABSTRACT
Time is an essential and indispensable element of justice, not a peripheral consideration. This article argues that prolonged litigation in Ghana has rendered constitutional guarantees, particularly the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, largely illusory for many citizens. Systemic delays in investigations, adjudication, and the late delivery of judgments impose significant financial, psychological, and social burdens and simultaneously erode evidence and undermine public confidence in the rule of law. In effect, such delays operate as a silent and constructive denial of justice and expose deep structural deficiencies within the legal system. Without urgent and sustained reform, the justice system risks entrenching inequality, escalating litigation costs, undermining public confidence, and fostering impunity. Restoring timely justice is therefore not merely an administrative necessity but a constitutional imperative essential to the protection of rights and the preservation of democratic governance.
INTRODUCTION
Justice is often heralded as a right, but for many Ghanaians, it is a pursuit shadowed by delay, cost, stress, and unpredictability. The experiences of Nii Okai Laryea of Sempe in Accra and Araba Mansa of Abura in Cape Coast illustrate the human impact of judicial delay and the hidden burdens imposed by procedural formalities.
Nii Okai Laryea and his sister, Atswei, jointly contributed towards and acquired a substantial plot of land for a development project in Tamale, Northern Region. However, disputes later arose over the property’s ownership, and Nii Okai Laryea subsequently instituted an action in court. Under the law, actions concerning land must be commenced in the jurisdiction where the land is situated. Accordingly, Nii Okai Laryea and Atswei traveled to Tamale to attend a scheduled court proceeding, only to find the bench vacant, an explanation provided, and the case adjourned. On one occasion, the explanation given was that the judge was indisposed; on another, that the bench was attending a training programme. On yet another occasion, the parties were informed that the presiding judge had been transferred. In all these instances, however, neither the lawyers nor the disputants had received any prior communication. The cost of such delay is measured not only in transportation expenses but also in the time lost, income forfeited, and the gradual erosion of public confidence in the justice system.
Araba Mansa, a trader at Kotokuraba Market near Cape Coast Castle who lives at Abura, also experienced a similar ordeal. She depends on the daily sale of tomatoes, pepper, and onions to sustain her family. When a business dispute led her to seek justice in court, the law required her to follow the defendant to Accra. Four times she rose before dawn, leaving her stall and her wares behind. Four times she made the journey, and four times the case was adjourned. The reason was not the absence or transfer of the judge, but rather requests by the defendant’s lawyer for more time. On one occasion, Counsel explained that he had not adequately prepared his witness statements and consequently sought an extension of time within which to file them. On another, Counsel informed the court that he had just received additional documents that required time to review. Another reason was that Counsel was engaged in proceedings in a different court at the same time, and therefore a colleague was holding brief and seeking an adjournment on his behalf. Each explanation was accepted in the interest of fairness, but each adjournment carried a heavy cost for Araba more than the transport fare. It costs time, livelihood, and faith in the system meant to protect her. A lawyer aware of the weakness of his client’s case may prolong proceedings through repeated adjournment applications, late filing of documents, requests for additional witnesses, or challenges to procedural issues. These strategies may fall within the formal bounds of legal practice, but their cumulative effect often places an unfair burden on litigants whose access to justice depends on the timely resolution of their disputes.
These stories though illustrative, are neither isolated nor exceptional. They reflect the lived experience of many litigants in Ghana who encounter judicial delay as a recurring feature of court processes. In Ghana, certain disputes, particularly those relating to land and traditional authority, have remained in litigation for extraordinarily long periods. Some cases have reportedly taken between ten and forty years to reach final determination, passing through several levels of appeal within the court hierarchy. These prolonged disputes illustrate the structural challenges confronting the judicial system and underscore the urgent need for reforms aimed at ensuring timely justice delivery.
Repeated adjournments occasioned by judicial absence, administrative inefficiencies, lost dockets, or repeated applications for adjournment and other litigation tactics employed by counsel transform access to justice into an arduous and costly pursuit. Judicial delay has consequences that extend beyond inconvenience. It undermines the constitutional guarantees of timely and effective justice, diminishes public trust in our Courts, and, in extreme cases, amounts to a constructive denial of rights.
Despite the constitutional guarantee of access to justice and the right to a speedy and fair trial, delays in the delivery of justice remain a persistent challenge in Ghana. Court congestion, procedural technicalities, frequent adjournments, and logistical constraints within the judicial system often prolong the resolution of cases. As a result, litigants particularly those with limited financial resources experience increased legal costs, emotional strain, and prolonged uncertainty. These delays undermine public confidence in the justice system and weaken the practical realization of constitutional rights. The long-standing adage that “the wheels of justice grind slowly” is often invoked as a justification for delays in the administration of justice. However, several factors also contribute to the slow pace of proceedings. One of the most significant challenges is that the courts are inundated with cases far beyond the capacity of the available judges, resulting in heavy dockets and prolonged waiting periods before matters are heard in the courts. Additionally, administrative and logistical constraints within the court system contribute to these delays. For instance, the slow preparation of records and proceedings, often due to limited typists or the manual transcription of court proceedings, significantly delays the progress of cases. Furthermore, delay tactics and repeated adjournment applications by counsel, whether to seek additional preparation time or to strategically prolong proceedings, also contribute substantially to the protracted timeline of litigation.
Prolonged litigation exposes individuals to uncertainty, emotional distress, and financial hardship. In criminal cases, accused persons may spend years awaiting trial, sometimes in detention, without a determination of guilt. Extended pre-trial detention, often caused by slow court processes, investigation delays, etc. results in individuals being deprived of their freedom without conviction. This undermines the presumption of innocence and exposes detainees to psychological, social, and economic harm. In such circumstances, delay becomes a form of punishment imposed without due process.
In civil matters, victims of rights violations are denied timely remedies, rendering justice meaningless. Prolonged delays can result in the loss, deterioration, or destruction of evidence, the fading of witnesses’ memories, and increased financial and emotional strain on litigants. In such circumstances, the integrity and reliability of judicial outcomes may be compromised, thereby weakening public confidence in the courts and undermining the rights the justice system is designed to uphold. While individuals with financial and social resources may navigate prolonged litigation with relative ease, disadvantaged persons are left trapped in a cycle of uncertainty and hardship. In many cases, they are forced to abandon legitimate claims or accept unfair settlements simply because they can no longer sustain the cost of pursuing justice. This situation ultimately results in the denial or effective erosion of their constitutional right to a fair hearing as guaranteed under the 1992 Constitution.
At a recent swearing-in ceremony for newly appointed Circuit Court judges at the Law Court Complex in Accra, the leadership of the judiciary reiterated the well-known maxim that “justice delayed is justice denied,” thereby rekindling public hope in the commitment of the courts to address persistent delays in the justice system. This reaffirmation underscores the urgent need to confront the systemic challenges that continue to hinder the timely delivery of justice in Ghana.
It is important to commend the judiciary under the current administration for introducing innovative measures aimed at improving efficiency within the court system. Notable among these initiatives are the introduction of the shift system in certain courts and the establishment of specialized courts to deal with specific categories of cases. In addition, the assignment of judges of the Superior Court of Judicature to specialized divisions to handle matters of critical national interest represents a significant and progressive development. These measures are commendable as they demonstrate a forward-looking approach to reducing case backlogs, enhancing judicial efficiency, and strengthening public confidence in the administration of justice.
At the same time, it is equally important to acknowledge that successive administrations of the judiciary and government have, over the years, made meaningful contributions toward strengthening Ghana’s justice system through investments in judicial infrastructure, the appointment of additional judges, and broader institutional reforms. Such cumulative efforts reflect a sustained national commitment to improving access to justice.
However, while these reforms are laudable, further steps remain necessary. In particular, the introduction of clear time limits for the determination of certain categories of cases could significantly improve the pace of adjudication. A useful precedent exists in the time-bound framework adopted for presidential election petitions following the 2012 Ghanaian presidential election (the Supreme Court is expected to deliver its final judgment within 42 days of the petition’s filing), where the Supreme Court delivered its decision within approximately eight months. Adopting similar structured timelines in appropriate cases could help reduce protracted litigation while preserving the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings.
The Supreme Court of India in a decided case (Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of U.P. and Others), directed its High Courts that where a judgment is not delivered within three months after it has been reserved, the matter should be brought to the attention of the Chief Justice so that appropriate steps may be taken to ensure that the judgment is delivered promptly or, where necessary, the matter reassigned. The focus of the Supreme Court’s directive was to enforce reasonable timelines for the delivery of judgments to enhance the efficiency, discipline, and credibility of the justice delivery system.
Ghana is not without legal provisions aimed at promoting efficient case management. Indeed, the procedural rules of the courts already contain mechanisms designed to ensure that cases are handled expeditiously. For instance, Order 32 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) provides for the use of case management conferences to enable the court to control the progress of proceedings, identify the real issues in dispute, and give directions intended to secure the just, expeditious, and cost-effective determination of cases. These provisions demonstrate that the legal framework for efficient case management already exists within Ghana’s procedural system. The challenge, however, lies not in the absence of rules, but in their consistent and rigorous implementation.
For Araba Mansa, Nii Okai Laryea, and his sister, Atswei, each adjournment represents far more than the cost of transport. While procedural rules governing jurisdiction and venue may be legally sound, their practical operation often imposes disproportionate burdens on ordinary citizens, particularly those of very modest means. These rules compel litigants to travel long distances to the defendant’s jurisdiction, thereby exacerbating financial and logistical hardships for rural or low-income individuals who lack access to affordable transportation. The situation is worsened when a judge is absent or transferred, and no prior communication is sent to the disputants or their lawyers, leaving them uninformed and forced to incur further unnecessary costs and delays.
CONCLUSION
Justice delayed is more than a legal issue. It is a societal concern that affects citizens, businesses, and the rule of law. Prolonged court proceedings not only deny people timely relief but also undermine public confidence in the justice system. Timely justice is not merely an administrative goal but a constitutional imperative. Effective implementation of the recommendations outlined in this article will not only help ensure that the promise of justice in Ghana is transformed from a theoretical ideal into a lived reality for all citizens, but will also contribute to the broader transformation of Ghana’s legal system.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To mitigate such inequities, the adoption of the E-Justice platforms comes in handy. It is a digital system for virtual filings, hearings, and case management that offers transformative benefits, especially for plaintiffs residing far from the defendant’s area, by enabling remote participation without physical attendance. These technological innovations enable parties residing outside the defendant’s jurisdiction to participate in proceedings without the need for repeated physical travel to the court.
Judicial transfers are necessary to preserve judicial independence. However, they must not disrupt the continuity of pending cases. The Judicial Service should institutionalize a mandatory handover protocol requiring that all pending cases are comprehensively documented, indicating their current status, next scheduled dates, and any outstanding rulings or applications. Court Registrars must ensure strict compliance with this protocol. Additionally, litigants and their counsel must be given timely and adequate notice of such transfers and the reassignment of their cases.
Courts can also deploy early communication via SMS alerts, email notifications, online scheduling and notification platforms for litigants and lawyers or public portals to inform parties of non-sitting days, preventing wasted journeys and further easing burdens on modest households. There is a pressing need to enhance technology within Ghana’s courts to improve efficiency and reduce delays. Many courts still rely heavily on manual processes for filing, record-keeping, and the transcription of proceedings, which contribute to administrative bottlenecks and lost time. Implementing digital filing systems, electronic case-tracking platforms, and automated recording of court proceedingswould streamline case management, minimize errors, and make court records readily accessible to judges, litigants, and lawyers.
Another key approach to addressing delays in justice delivery is the implementation of statutory time limits for the adjudication of cases, as demonstrated in the presidential election petitions. Time limits compel all parties including plaintiffs, defendants, and the courts to manage cases proactively, thereby reducing unnecessary delays.
Despite the existence and demonstrated effectiveness of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms such as mediation, arbitration, and negotiation, many citizens in Ghana continue to prefer traditional courtroom litigation. Even when disputes could be resolved more quickly, affordably, and confidentially through ADR, litigants often perceive court proceedings as more authoritative. To address this challenge, the judiciary and relevant authorities should implement targeted public education campaigns emphasizing the advantages of ADR, integrate mandatory ADR sessions before formal court proceedings. Authorities should establish structured reporting systems to assess ADR utilization, outcomes, and satisfaction levels, thereby facilitating continuous enhancement of the process.
Effective case management is critical to reducing judicial delays and improving the efficiency of courts in Ghana. Courts should evaluate cases during Case Management Conference to identify complexity, urgency, and required resources. Implementing digital case-tracking and docket management systems enables courts to monitor pending cases, detect bottlenecks, and ensure adherence to timelines.
Finally, it is important to commend both the current and successive governments for their efforts to strengthen the judiciary. Over the years, investments in the construction of court facilities across the country, the recruitment of additional judges, the introduction of shift systems in certain courts, and the assignment of judges of the Superior Court of Judicature to specialized divisions to handle matters of critical national interest have all contributed to improving the administration of justice. These initiatives are highly commendable as they seek to reduce the backlog of cases, enhance judicial efficiency, and promote the timely delivery of justice. Justice cannot wait. Time is indeed justice, and it is high time we act as a Country.
May God bless our homeland, Ghana, and make our nation great and strong!!!
REFERENCES
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
Source: www.myjoyonline.com