ISAAC C. KUMEH, Informant, v. HIS HONOUR S. FAIKAI GARDINER, Judge presiding over the Third Judicial Circuit, Sinoe County, and KLWAHYEE, Respondents.
APPEAL FROM THE RULING OF THE JUSTICE IN CHAMBERS ON INFORMATION PROCEEDINGS.
Heard: November 18, 1981. Decided: February 4, 1982.
1. Prohibition will not lie in substitution for an appeal.
2. The Supreme Court views as unprofessional and a disgrace to the legal profession, lawyers who resort to delay tactics to defeat justice.
Based on a writ of replevin issued and served in March, 1968, Co-respondent Klwahyee was dispossessed of his pigs. Trial of the case itself did not occur until the August Term, 1972 of the Third Judicial Circuit Court, when a verdict was returned in favor of Co-respondent Klwahyee. The informant did not except to the verdict or the final judgment but, instead applied for and obtained a writ of prohibition. After a hearing, the alternative writ was quashed; but when the trial court proceeded to enforce the Supreme Court’s mandate, informant moved by bill of information. At the hearing of the bill of information, informant’s counsel conceded that the bill of information was unfounded and baseless. The Supreme Court observed that the long delay in disposing of this case was due to the dilatory tactics of informant’s counsel and warned that such conduct was unprofessional and brought disgrace to the legal profession. The ruling of the Justice in Chambers was therefore affirmed Clarence O. Tunning appeared for the Informant. Nelson W. Broderick appeared for the Respondents.
MR. JUSTICE YANGBE delivered the opinion of the Court.
On the 16th day of March, 1968, a period over thirteen (13) years now, informant sued out a writ of replevin in the Third Judicial Circuit Court, Sinoe County, against Co -respondent Klwahyee. The writ of summons having been issued and served, Co-respondent Klwahyee was dispossessed of his four pigs, namely: a large sow pig and three sow pigs, in his home town, Juarzon District, Sinoe County, about forty (40) miles from Greenville City. Accordingly, the pigs were turned over to the informant by the bailiff, who had served the writ of replevin on co-respondent Klwah yee, as defendant.
For some unexplained reasons, this case was not heard until during the August Term, 1972, of the said court. The jury having retired into their room of deliberation, a verdict was brought in favour of Co-respondent Klwahyee which was affirmed by the Court below on the 21st day of September; 1972, to the effect that informant was to return the four pigs to Co-respondent Klwahyee or their market value as stipulated in informant’s replevin bond; and to pay to Co-respondent Klwahyee the sum of$300.00 as costs and expenses.
Informant neither excepted to the verdict of the jury nor the Court’s final judgment. Notwithstanding, informant applied for a writ of prohibition against Judge James M. T. Kandakai and Co-respondent Klwahyee. The alternative writ of prohibition was issued. Mr. Justice S. Raymond Horace, former Associate Justice, then presiding .in Chambers, heard the prohibition proceedings and on the 5th of October, 1976, denied the petition and ordered the writ quashed.
During the November Term, 1976, of the Third Judicial Circuit Court, on the 30th day of December, 1976, His Honour James L. Brathwaite then presiding by assignment, read the mandate from this Court on the petition for prohibition and ordered the enforcement of the final judgment of Judge Kandakai; but it appears that this mandate was not enforced. So when Judge Gardiner, who presided over the February Term, 1977, of the trial court, attempted to enforce the said mandate of this Court on the 11th day of March, 1977, informant again fled to this Court and filed what he styled “Bill of Information for unlawful interference with a judgment rendered on September 21, 1972, and upheld by the Associate Justice presiding in Chambers on October 9, 1976.” Mr. Justice Azango then presiding in Chambers ordered the issuance and service of the alternative writ on March 21, 1977.
The bill of information was heard during the March Term, 1978, by Mr. Justice Tulay and on the 29th day of June, 1978, denied said bill of information with costs against informant. From the ruling of Mr. Justice Tulay, informant excepted and appealed to this Court for the review of said ruling.
At the call of this case for hearing on November 18, 1981, both parties were represented as of record. As a result of questions propounded to informant’s counsel by this Court as to whether the final judgment of the trial court was not in conformity with the Civil Procedure Law of 1956, with respect to replevin proceedings when the trial judge ruled that the informant, plaintiff below, should pay to Co-respondent Klwahyee the amount of $300.00 as costs and expenses of the said co-respondent and after reading the relevant portion of the statute, informant’s counsel made record to the effect that in view of the provision of the statute as regards replevin proceedings he conceded that his client was liable to the Co respondent, Klwahyee, defendant in the trial court, in the sum of $435.00, that is to say, $135.00 as the market value of the four pigs, and the amount of $300.00 as costs and expenses of Co-respondent Klwahyee, excluding the costs of the trial court and of this Court. Informant’s counsel expressed his regrets when he told the Court that the bill of costs had not been presented to him, and, therefore, apologized for giving such wrong information to the Court, having already complained in counts four and five of the bill of information that Judge Brathwaite had interfered with the judgment of Judge Kandakai by increasing the market value of the four pigs to $135.00.
In view of the foregoing, the Ruling of Mr. Justice Tulay, then presiding in Chambers of this Court on June 29, 1978, denying the alternative writ, is hereby affirmed and confirmed. In concluding this opinion, however, we very much feel constrained to observe that even though this case was originally slated for trial in 1968, it was not heard until 1972, a period of four years, and that it was not fully concluded until 1981, a period of thirteen (13) years. We are still at a loss to understand as to why this state of affairs could have been allowed to happen. Whatever the reasons, we are of the view that the circumstances surrounding this case point to only one sensible conclusion that, the informant and his counsel resorted to delay tactics to defeat justice, which conduct this Court repeatedly frowns upon. This Court views such behavior as unprofessional and, consequently, regards the same as a disgrace to the legal profession of this Republic. We are once again compelled to warn members of the legal profession of this Republic against such unethical behavior and urge them to respect their professional oaths. Costs of these proceedings are ruled against informant.
The Clerk of this Court is hereby commanded to send a mandate to the trial court to resume jurisdiction over the case and enforce the judgment. And it is hereby so ordered.
Ruling Affirmed.