On 11 September 2026, the Accra Court of Appeal delivered judgment in Unique Furnishing Limited v. Holman Brothers Limited (TLP‑CA‑2026‑43), setting aside a High Court land dispute ruling on grounds of judicial bias.
The appeal originally turned on the weight of evidence, but the Court redirected its analysis to the trial judge's prior role as Chief Registrar of Lands. Because that official had personally signed the land title certificate at the centre of the dispute, the Court concluded the judge's "personal knowledge" of the transaction created a real likelihood of bias. The finding relied on the doctrine of nemo judex in causa sua and Article 19(13) of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees the right to an impartial judge.
Under established Ghanaian jurisprudence, a judge must recuse when circumstances would lead a reasonable observer to perceive a real possibility of partiality, even where no actual prejudice is demonstrated. The Court applied that standard here, holding that procedural integrity can override the factual merits of a case. The High Court judgment of 29 July 2022 was therefore annulled, and the matter was remitted for retrial before a differently constituted trial court.
The decision carries several practical implications for the Ghanaian judiciary. First, it clarifies that a judge's prior professional involvement in a specific transaction—such as registering or certifying a title—can disqualify that judge from sitting on a subsequent dispute over the same instrument. Second, it reinforces that the threshold for recusal is objective (the reasonable observer test) rather than subjective, meaning the judge's own belief in their neutrality is not determinative.
Why the ruling matters
The reported decision illustrates why a court must address apparent conflicts before the merits of a land dispute can be finally resolved. Where a judge previously held an official position connected to the disputed transaction, the relevant question concerns the appearance of impartiality under the applicable legal test. It does not require an unsupported accusation that the judge acted dishonestly.
The next stage for the parties depends on the Court of Appeal's actual order and any further proceedings. For the courts, the practical lesson is to identify potentially relevant prior roles early, give parties a fair opportunity to raise concerns and record reasons for decisions on recusal.