Litigation is expensive. That much is widely acknowledged. But discussions about the cost of accessing justice often focus on lawyers’ fees, filing fees and other formal expenses associated with taking a case to court. Less attention is paid to the money, time and resources people lose when the judicial process does not proceed as expected.
Consider a lawyer who prepares for a hearing, arranges transportation, battles traffic and arrives at court early in the morning, only to discover that the court will not sit. Consider, too, the litigant who has travelled from another part of the country, taken time off work or spent money they can scarcely afford, only to be told that the hearing will not take place.
Not every adjournment can be avoided. Emergencies happen, and circumstances may prevent a court from sitting as scheduled. Yet lawyers and litigants have often had to travel to court on the appointed day only to discover that the court will not sit. When the cancellation is known in advance, why should they have to make the journey before finding out?
Thankfully, the Judicial Secretary has issued a directive to address this problem.
Mandatory Notification of Court Sittings and Adjournments
In a circular dated 12 October 2026 and titled Mandatory Notification of Court Sittings and Adjournments, Judicial Secretary Musah Ahmed directed registrars and assigned court clerks to notify all relevant lawyers and litigants without delay whenever a court is unable to sit.
The circular provides for notification through WhatsApp, SMS or email and requires court registries to maintain updated contact details. It also states that failure to provide timely notice, where reasonably possible, will be treated as a serious dereliction of duty. Heads of courts are expected to ensure that the directive is circulated and followed.
It is a practical measure that, if properly implemented, could spare court users unnecessary journeys, expense and frustration. But the problem of adjournments is only one part of a wider concern about the time it takes to obtain justice.
Delays in the Justice Delivery System
“Justice delayed is justice denied.” This familiar saying appears on many court premises, but for many people who have had to pursue a case, it is more than a maxim on a wall. It is an experience. Anyone who has had to litigate a matter may know the frustration of preparing for a hearing, spending money to attend court and arriving only to discover that the court will not sit. Happening every so often, the cases usually take longer than they otherwise would, leaving parties waiting months or years for a decision.
In Brahini v Enterprise Life Assurance, Justice Barima Oppong of the Court of Appeal drew attention to two cases that took exceptionally long periods to reach finality. Agyemang (substituted by) Banahene & Ors v Anane lasted about 40 years, while Nana Otuo Antwi Boasiako v Nana Adjei Panin took more than 96 years.
Ninety-six years is a generation. It is difficult to contemplate a dispute remaining unresolved for that long. The people who began the case may not live to see its conclusion. Their families may grow, and circumstances may change entirely before a final decision is reached.
There may, of course, be circumstances behind a case of such inordinate duration that the number of years alone cannot explain. But 96 years is an extraordinary length of time for any dispute to remain unresolved. Whatever the circumstances of that particular case, the prospect of litigation lasting a lifetime is troubling. A judgment may finally settle the legal dispute, but it cannot return the years that have passed.
The cost of delay goes beyond legal fees. It may include lost earnings, missed opportunities, prolonged uncertainty and the strain of living with an unresolved dispute. Even when a party eventually wins, the outcome may feel like a pyrrhic victory if the years spent pursuing it have taken so much that the judgment cannot make up for the loss.
The Tyranny of Small Mercies
The frustration caused by adjournments is familiar to lawyers as well. Occasionally a lawyer may spend hours preparing for a hearing, travel to court and only then discover that the case will not proceed.
Lawyer Ace Anan Ankomah captured this experience in a Facebook post dated June, 2, 2026, titled “The Tyranny of Small Mercies, A Text Message and I Was Ready to Hand Out Medals.” He recounted receiving a text message informing him that all cases scheduled for the following day at the Supreme Court had been adjourned. After decades of legal practice, he was surprised by the advance notice.
His account says something about how accustomed court users have become to the inconvenience. A message that saves a lawyer an unnecessary journey should not feel like an extraordinary favour. For litigants, who may have fewer resources to absorb the cost of a wasted trip, the benefit can be even greater.
Courts will not always be able to give advance notice. Emergencies and other unforeseen circumstances can arise. But where a cancellation is known beforehand, informing those expected in court should be a normal part of court administration. The directive is a welcome step, provided it is consistently followed.
More Lawyers, but the Same Unresolved Problem?
Ghana’s growing legal profession raises a related question about access to justice. At the October 2026 Call to the Bar, 1,568 new lawyers were reportedly called to the Ghana Bar. But an increase in the number of lawyers does not automatically mean that legal services have become more affordable or that cases are being resolved more quickly.
Increasing the number of lawyers is only part of the answer. Access to justice also depends on where legal services are available, what they cost and how efficiently the courts handle disputes. A person may find a lawyer and manage to commence proceedings, yet still wait years for a final decision.
The question is not simply whether Ghana has enough lawyers. It is whether people can afford to enforce their rights and obtain a remedy without unreasonable financial burdens or delays.
Making Justice Less Expensive
The Judicial Secretary’s directive is a welcome practical step. Its success will depend on proper implementation, accurate contact details and a consistent effort by registries to notify court users as early as reasonably possible. The directive sets out what is expected; the real test will be whether it changes what happens in practice.
But reducing the cost of litigation requires more than timely messages about cancelled hearings. It also requires attention to avoidable adjournments, effective case management and the factors that cause cases to drag on. Legal services must also be affordable and accessible to people outside the main urban centres.
The cost of going to court is not confined to the fees paid at the beginning of a case. It includes what people spend each time they attend, the income they may lose and the uncertainty they endure while waiting for a decision. Timely notification can reduce some of these costs, but prolonged delays and barriers to legal representation require wider attention.
The directive is a useful step towards reducing the unnecessary expense of litigation. The larger task is to ensure that people who turn to the courts can pursue their cases without avoidable costs and receive decisions within a reasonable time.
