2018
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolves around the jurisdictional issues concerning the freezing of Nicholas Alamo's account initially frozen based on EOCO's suspicions of fraud. Post acquittal, EOCO secured a stay of execution pending appeal, which Alamo contested. The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had jurisdiction to enforce the stay of execution beyond the statutory period and that the Court of Appeal had improperly assumed jurisdiction in setting aside the High Court’s stay of execution. Ultimately, Alamo's application for certiorari challenging the High Court’s stay of execution was dismissed.
BAFFOE-BONNIE, JSC:-
The Application before us is for judicial review by way of an order of certiorari under article
132 of the 1992 Constitution and rule 61(1) of C.I. 16 as amended by C.I. 24. , praying for
an order, to bring up into the court for the purpose of being quashed, the ruling of the
High Court, Coram: Her Ladyship Justice Afia Serwaa Botwe, dated 9th of April, 2018,
granting an application for stay of execution pending appeal.
The grounds for the application as stated by the applicant are
a. “That the High Court lacked jurisdiction when it continuously froze the applicants
account under the guise of “Stay of Execution pending Appeal” when the statutory
period of 12 months had lapsed and the same Court had in an earlier ruling dated
19th day of March 2018 ordered for the defreezing (sic) of the Applicant’s account
after the applicant had been acquitted and discharged by the said Court of all
criminal charges brought against him by the interested party.
b. That the ruling of the High Court dated 9th April, 2018, amount to an error patent on
the face of the records.”
The application was accompanied by an affidavit and a statement of case. The interested
party filed an affidavit in opposition to the application, and a statement of case in which he
raised a preliminary point of law. In addition to the arguments in support of the preliminary
objection, the court also heard extensive oral submissions from counsel.
For a fuller and better appreciation of our ruling hereunder, we deem it necessary to
recount in material detail the antecedents of this case. Additionally, since there have been
several applications initiated by both parties in this case, we shall refer to the parties in this
application by their names, where appropriate, to make for ease of identification. The
applicant herein will be referred to as Nicholas Alamo, while the interested person is
referred to as EOCO.
Sometime in June 2016, the EOCO caused to be frozen an amount of 200,000 USD,
standing to the credit of Nicholas Alamo at the Guaranty Trust Bank, which amount the
EOCO suspected to be gains from fraud, money laundering, and related offences. This
freezing order was confirmed by the court on an application made to it by the EOCO. While
the investigation was going on, Nicolas Alamo, per his counsel, applied for the freezing
order to be discharged. The High Court determined that the application was premature and
so same was refused. After investig