2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The applicant sought an order of certiorari to quash a ruling by Abdullah Iddrisu J which rescinded the applicants bail without giving him a chance to be heard. The court found that the learned judge exceeded his jurisdiction and breached the rules of natural justice, and thus quashed the ruling.
RULING
AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS.), JSC:
Before us is an application on notice for an order of certiorari pursuant to Article 132 of the 1992 Constitution to quash the ruling dated the 9th of March 2016 delivered by Abdullah Iddrisu J sitting at the High Court, Criminal Division, Accra; and a further order prohibiting the learned Judge from hearing the matter.
In the said ruling, an order was made “rescinding the bail granted to the accused person on the 23rd of November 2013 and remanding the applicant into prison custody”.
The following are the grounds relied on by the applicant:
“His Lordship exceeded his Jurisdiction when he rescinded the bail granted to the applicant and remanded him into prison custody when the terms of the said bail bond had not been breached by the applicant.
The ruling dated 9th March 2016 was made in breach of the rules of natural justice”.
In order to appreciate the issues raised, it is necessary to give a brief background of the events which led to the instant application.
The facts as gleaned from the affidavits filed in these proceedings are as follows:
On the 18th of July 2013, the applicant herein was arraigned before the High Court, Accra (Criminal Division) on charges of stealing and forgery contrary to sections 124 and 158 respectively of the Criminal Offences Act 29 of 1960. He was not admitted to bail and therefore remained in custody until the 23rd of November 2013 when he regained his liberty after satisfying the bail conditions imposed by the learned trial Judge.
Having obviously tasted the harsh conditions obtaining in our prisons, he thereafter ensured that he continued enjoying his freedom by religiously appearing before the Court on all the subsequent adjourned dates. The same could not, however, be said of his lawyer who almost regularly absented himself from court on account of his parliamentary engagements.
The learned judge was apparently not enthused about the conduct of counsel for the applicant; (as evidenced by the orders made on the 9th of March 2016)
The case, nonetheless proceeded to trial; the prosecution led evidence and closed its case on the 15th of February 2016 (not without the several adjournments at the instance of counsel for the applicant)
At the conclusion of the case for the prosecution, learned counsel for the applicant intimated to the court that he was desirous of making a submission of no case. An adjournment was granted for the purpose, and thereafter the hearing of the applicatio