REPUBLIC v. DISTRICT COURT GRADE II, AKWAPIM;EX PARTE DJANIE AND OTHERS
1990
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ESSIEM
- AMUAH
- OFORI-BOATENG JJ.A
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Civil Procedure
- Administrative Law
1990
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal, per Essiem J.A. with Amuah J.A. and Ofori‑Boateng J.A. concurring, dismissed an application by three accused persons for a stay of execution, interim injunction, and a stay of proceedings pending their appeal from the High Court. The applicants are on trial in the District Court Grade II, Mampong‑Akwapim for conduct conducive to a breach of the peace under section 207 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). They argued that a bona fide land title issue raised at the close of the prosecution’s case ousted the magistrate’s jurisdiction under section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), and sought certiorari and prohibition in the High Court; Armah J. dismissed both and awarded costs. On the stay application before the Court of Appeal, Essiem J.A. held that the affidavit did not show lack of jurisdiction; alleged errors were matters within the magistrate’s remit and not certiorari‑worthy; bail could mitigate any harm; and, relying on Takyi v. Ghassoub, there is no authority to stay criminal proceedings. The application was dismissed.
JUDGMENT OF ESSIEM J.A.
This is an application for (a) a stay of execution of the judgment of Armah J. dated 16 November; (b) an order of interim injunction restraining the second respondent, his agents, servants, collaborators, privies or supporters from molesting or continuing to molest, threaten or beating or leading others to beat, harass or molest the applicants-appellants herein during the pendency of the appeal; (c) an order staying proceedings in the District Court Grade II, Mampong till the final disposal of the appeal and (d) for such order or other orders as to the court, may seem fit.
The three applicants are standing trial before the District Court Grade II, Mampong-Akwapim on a charge of conduct conducive to a breach of the peace under section 207 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). They allege in their affidavit in support of this application that at the close of the prosecution’s case their counsel applied to make a submission of no case but the "lay magistrate" refused to hear the submission and formally called upon them to open their defence.
They claimed that at the close of the prosecution's case, they had raised a bona fide question of title to land and that the trial magistrate erred in calling upon them to open their defence since at that stage [p.265] the jurisdiction of the magistrate had been ousted by section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30).
The applicants therefore applied to the High Court for an order of certiorari to quash the ruling of the district court and for a further order of prohibition directed against the said magistrate to prohibit him from proceeding with the hearing of the case in which the applicants are the accused.
The High Court, constituted by Armah J, dismissed the two applications. He concluded his ruling as follows: "For the above reasons, I would dismiss the application. The case before the district court should proceed. I award the second respondent costs of ¢30,000 against the applicant."
The applicants then appealed to this court and applied for a stay of execution before the High Court. That application was also dismissed by Armah J., hence the instant application to this court. Learned counsel for the applicants went to great lengths, in arguing this application before us, to show that the appeal now pending in this court is not frivolous but that it has a good chance of success. He urged upon us to order a stay of the proceedings before the district court otherwise the app