Court of Appeal in the Spotlight for playing the Justice Delayed Tactics
By Sall Tee Jay
The aphorism “Justice delayed is justice denied” is a common legal principle emphasizing the importance of timely resolution of legal disputes. It highlights the potential harm caused when legal proceedings are unduly protracted, potentially diminishing the value of the remedy, if it’s only available after a significant delay. This is particularly relevant in cases like “Jaffer Hussein Zeghir versus Leonoil”, where the delay may create additional hardship or prejudice to the parties involved.
The phrase is often cited as a justification for constitutional rights to speedy trials and other mechanisms aimed at expediting judicial processes. In Sierra Leone, for example, legal reformers and the public have been concerned about the delay in handing down judgments, reflecting the widespread understanding of this principle.
In cases where the plaintiff is responsible for significant delays, the court may In the case between Jaffer and LeonOil , it highlights a significant issue of justice delayed, which essentially translates to justice denied. Even after three years of legal proceedings, the High Court, presided over by Hon. Justice Samuel Taylor, made a ruling in favor of Jaffa. The ruling required LeonOil to either return the 200,000 liters of petroleum products, or compensate Jaffa with 6 billion Leones, equivalent to the value of the products at current prices at the time the ruling was made.
However, the situation took a frustrating turn when the Appeal Court intervened by placing a stay of execution on the High Court’s decision, effectively blocking Jaffa from receiving what is rightfully his.
What adds to the frustration is the perceived interference of influential individuals, who are hell bent on undermining the Judiciary.
Public perception about the judiciary is not anything good to write home about, especially when the delay tactics is being used to dispense justice. This interference has seemingly been aimed at pushing Jaffer out of business, thereby highlighting the power dynamics at play in the business and legal landscape of Sierra Leone. The stalled progress due to the Appeal Court’s involvement, where the matter has been repeatedly adjourned without resolution, only serves to compound the injustice faced by Jaffer.
Overall, this case underscores the urgent need for reform within the Sierra Leone Justice System. It sheds light on the challenges faced by individuals like Jaffer, who lack the influence and resources to circumnavigate the complexities of a system that seems susceptible to external pressures and delays. The integrity and efficiency of the legal system are crucial to ensuring that justice is not only delivered, but also perceived to be fair and accessible to all, regardless of their standing or influence. Only through a transparent and accountable system can such injustices be addressed and prevented in the future.
This brings to mind concerns raised by CHRDI (a Civil Society Organization), who, in recent development, have questioned the way and manner of handling cases by the Judiciary, which, to a larger extent, has the tendency to bring chaos.
Researchers opined that instability in many countries could be tied to injustice; and the judiciary and the justice sector stand accused of fermenting this through unholy and dishonesty, for which the public always suffer the brunt.