NII NUEH ODONKOR v. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ECONOMIC AND ORGANIZED CRIME OFFICE & OTHERS
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- OFOE,J.A
- ACQUAYE,J.A
- TORKORNOO,J.A
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Property Law
- Procedural Law
- Constitutional Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant challenged the High Court's order of forfeiture of his funds, arguing lack of jurisdiction, improper notice, and lack of evidence of tainted funds. The appeal was dismissed, with the court holding that the High Court had jurisdiction under Section 23 of Act 804, that proper notice was given, and that the funds could be considered tainted under the circumstances.
OFOE,J.A:
The appellant was before the High Court with a motion:
“…TO SET ASIDE ORDER OF CONFISCATION AND FORFEITURE AND FOR AN ORDER OF RELEASE AND DEFREEZE OF ACCOUNT INHERENT JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT: 1992 CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 296 CLAUSE (a) AND (b): sec 38(1)(a)(i) AND 2(), SECTION 47,50(1) AND(3),51 OF ECONOMIC AND ORGANIZED CRIME OFFICE ACT 2010(ACT 804): ORDER 19 RULE 1(1) OF CI 47”.
This was after an earlier High Court had made an order forfeiting his funds in his accounts with the ECOBANK. Details of the facts will unfold in this opinion.
Before I proceed into the substance of the appeal let me briefly dispose off a jurisdictional issue raised by the respondent, EOCO. It contends that the applicant by operation of C.I 19 rule 9 of the Court of Appeal Rules was out of time when he sought to challenge the forfeiture orders made by the court on the 19th February 2013. I think there is no doubt the forfeiture order sought to be impugned by the applicant was made on the 19th February 2013 and the motion to set aside that order was filed by the applicant on the 14th of January 2014. From the date of the forfeiture order ie 19th February 2013 the applicant had an unfettered right of 3 months within which to appeal and further 3 months with the leave of the court to complain on appeal, if he was so minded. This is by virtue of rule 9 of the Court of Appeal rules. He did not appeal against the order but rather filed the motion to set aside the forfeiture order. By rule 9(2), calculation of the appeal period shall be from the date of the decision appealed against and not from the date the order or decision came to the applicant’s notice, as contended by his counsel. The forfeiture order was made on the 19th February 2013 and it is from this date that the appeal period is calculated.An appeal, as is common knowledge is to give a party the right to testthe decision of a lower court at a higher forum, in our case testing the High Court’s judgment in the Appeal Court. Where a party loses this right of appeal he is forever barred from subsequent challenge of the trial court’s judgment or order. By the authorities the only circumstances he can challenge such judgment after forfeiting this right of appeal by effluxion of time is where the judgment or order is void and such void orders can be set aside at anytime. For such void orders are considered not only bad but incurably bad. They are automatically null and void. One of the methods for attacking a vo