REPUBLIC v. CAPE COAST DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GRADE II; EX PARTE AMOO (NO. 2)

JUDGMENT OF ABOAGYE J.

The applicant herein seeks leave of this court to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the order of Edward Wiredu J. in Republic v. Cape Coast District Magistrate Grade II; Ex parte Amoo [1976] 1 G.L.R. 116 quashing upon an application for an order of certiorari, the judgment or order of his worship Mr. F. A. B. Haizel, district magistrate grade II, Cape Coast, in a civil suit entitled Kofi Adae Amoo v. University of Cape Coast.

The brief facts which gave rise to the certiorari proceedings are as follows: On or about 27 February 1975, one Kofi Adae Amoo took out summons in the District Court Grade I, Cape Coast, against the University of Cape Coast for ¢650.00 "being acting or responsibility allowance or both." During the pendency of the suit the district magistrate grade I went on leave and Mr. Haizel, a lay district magistrate grade II, was appointed by the Chief Justice to act as district magistrate grade I. In his capacity as district magistrate grade I, Mr. Haizel heard the suit and gave a judgment dismissing the plaintiff 's claim with costs.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff later applied to this court and obtained from Edward Wiredu J. an order of certiorari quashing the judgment and proceedings before the district magistrate. The ground upon which the application was made and granted was that under section 8 (3) and (4) of the Judicial Service Act, 1960 (C.A. 10), as amended by the Judicial Service Decree, 1966 (N.L.C.D. 83), para. 3 (c), the Chief Justice could not validly appoint a lay person to act as a district magistrate grade I. A lay person can only be appointed as a district magistrate grade II upon a limited engagement. The appointment of Mr. Haizel as acting district magistrate grade I was therefore a nullity and he could not have exercised any lawful jurisdiction as a district magistrate grade I.

In support of his application for leave to appeal against the order of Edward Wiredu J., Mr. E. S. Aidoo made the following submissions:

(1) The learned judge erred in granting the application because certiorari does not lie against civil decisions of inferior courts or tribunals.

(2) Learned counsel for the plaintiff should have objected to the jurisdiction of the acting magistrate grade I in time to stop him from hearing the suit.

(3) The judgment and proceedings quashed were in order since the subject-matter of the suit was within the jurisdiction of a district magistrate grade II, Mr. Haizel's substantive of