JUDGMENT OF MENSAH J.
This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the ruling or [p.98] order of the District Magistrate Court Grade I, Keta dismissing the submission of no case made by the appellants’ counsel. The main ground of appeal is that the learned trial magistrate’s order is unreasonable having regard to the evidence.
The brief facts of the case are that the complainant and the paternal aunts of the appellants litigated over a piece of land before the Circuit Court, Denu. Then on 28 March 1988 the said circuit court gave judgment in favour of the aunts of the appellants and on that day the appellants went onto the disputed land and caused damage to some economic trees thereon. They further destroyed some moulded blocks and cut down the fence of the complainant. A report was made to the police by the complainant and the appellants were charged before the District Magistrate Court Grade I, Keta.
After the complainant had testified before the trial court, counsel for the appellants did not cross-examine him but instead made a submission of no case which was overruled by the court. It is this ruling or order which the appellants, being aggrieved at, have appealed against on the ground stated earlier in this judgment.
Arguing the appeal, the appellants’ counsel submitted, inter alia, that since the complainant admitted there was a land dispute between him and the paternal aunts of the appellants, then by section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30) a bona fide question of title has been raised and therefore the trial court did not have jurisdiction to go on hearing the case against the appellants.
Counsel went on further to argue that the Anlos do inherit patrilineally and since the aunts of the appellants were parties who won judgment in respect of the said disputed land at the Circuit Court, Denu, they were directly affected and therefore a bona fide question or claim to title was raised and therefore the submission of no case should not have been dismissed by the trial district court.
In her reply, counsel for the Republic argued that the important provision in section 180 of Act 30 for its invocation is “if the trial court, is of the opinion that a bona fide question of title to land is raised it shall discharge the accused.” She therefore submitted that the appellants did not have direct title to the land and were not parties to the suit before the Circuit Court, Denu and therefore the trial court was right in dismissing
