Republic v High Court, Accra, ex parte Eastwood Limited and others

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC. The preceding matters leading to the present application originated from the National Public Tribunal before which the respondents were tried of certain criminal offences under the Public Tribunals Law 1984 (PNDCL 78). The respondents, it appears were convicted by that tribunal, but the issue of sentence was not concluded there and then. This situation arose because the respondents decided to take advantage of section 1(4) and (2) of the Public Tribunals (Amendment) Law 1989 (PNDCL 213) by offering restitution or reparations to the State for the losses, if any, which had been occasioned by their offences. The matter of restitution and reparations was finally settled on 8 October 1990. The respondents’ (except the 1st respondent’s) plea bargain was accepted by the tribunal and orders were made confiscating the properties which formed the basis of the case before Brobbey JA sitting as an appeal judge of the High Court to the state. The respondents promptly appealed to the appeals and review division of the High Court which on or about 16 October 1992 reversed the judgment of the National Public Tribunal and decreed that the assets of the respondents be returned to them.

It is worthy of note that the National Public Tribunal in the orders which it made in the course of the plea bargain, and this is conceded by the applicants, made the following additional orders in its judgment:

“(1) That before restitution is made by the 1st accused no property of the 2nd and 3rd accused companies, ie, Priorities Ghana Limited and Holex Timber Products Limited shall be disposed of by any person without the consent of the trial tribunal, and;

(2) That the trial tribunal shall make such further orders as it deems fit.” (Emphasis mine.)

It does not appear that any such consent was obtained but the applicants contend that further to an order made by the Interim Deals Diary (Ghana) on 20 May 1991, they bought the properties in dispute from the Official Liquidator and they were therefore the owners of the properties.

It is agreed that at the time of the alleged purchase by the applicants the respondents' appeal was pending. It is not the province of this application to delve into the ramifications of the various orders of the National Public Tribunal culminating in their judgment but it is true to say that by a majority decision, and that is the judgment of the appellate and review division of the National Public Tribu