JUDGMENT OF ABBAN J.
The applicant herein is asking for an order to stay the proceedings in a trial involving himself and five other persons in the Circuit Court, Accra, until after the hearing and determination of his appeal now pending before the High Court. From the affidavit of the applicant, the following facts do emerge, The applicant and the said five persons were charged with various offences and put before the said circuit court. At the close of the case for the prosecution, a submission of no case to answer made on behalf of the applicant and the other five persons, was overruled by the learned circuit judge on 18 November 1971; and in consequence thereof, the applicant and those accused persons were called upon to make their defence. The applicant, as the sixth accused, being aggrieved by the said ruling, on 22 November 1971 filed notice of appeal in the High Court and on 23 November, he applied to the learned circuit judge to stay proceedings pending the hearing of the said appeal. But the application was refused. Thereafter the applicant brought the present motion.
In arguing the application learned counsel for the applicant submitted, inter alia, that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success and at any rate the grounds of appeal disclose answerable argument. It was further contended that if the hearing of the case proceeds in the circuit court, the purpose of the appeal will be frustrated. Learned counsel referred to various sections of the new Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372). However, he relied principally on sections 14 and 20 of the said Act and [p.119] on article 114 of the Constitution, 1969, to show that the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application and to make the order being asked for. In the course of his argument, learned counsel made reference to article 28 of the Constitution and submitted that the rights of his client were being infringed. Because (as contended by learned counsel) the charge sheet before the circuit court did not inform the applicant, in detail, of the nature of the offence charged and that the learned circuit judge by ignoring this fact and holding otherwise was acting in contravention of article 20 (2) (c) of the Constitution.
It must be observed that, unfortunately, a copy of the charge sheet complained of and a certified true copy of the said ruling were never exhibited in this application. With the result that it is absolutely impossible for this court to determine whether or not the lear
