THE REPUBLIC vs DISTRICT COURT, ASOKWA & ORS

Dr. Poku Adusei, JA:

The antecedent facts of this case which culminated in the appeal herein are not contentious. On 2 December 2021, the Applicant/Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) was arraigned before the District Court Asokwa on a misdemeanour charge of offensive conduct conducive to breaches of the peace contrary to section 207 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). He was tried, convicted and sentenced in a suit numbered AR/AO/DC4/569/22 to pay a fine of 500 penalty units, or in default, serve three months imprisonment. The appellant was further ordered to execute a bond to be of good behaviour or, in default, serve three months imprisonment. The appellant duly paid the fine and executed the bond as ordered by the District Court.

Subsequent to his conviction and sentence, the appellant was alleged to have committed further acts intended to breach the peace in violation of the law and for that matter his earlier executed bond. The prosecution, instead of preferring fresh charges against the appellant, decided to file a motion, pursuant to section 299(2) of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30), to enforce the bond to be of good behaviour against the appellant. In the affidavit in support of the impugned motion, the Interested Party/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) prayed the District Court to enforce the bond against the appellant, by imposing a custodial sentence on him.

This decision of the prosecution to elect and follow the impugned procedure in dealing with the conduct of the appellant had incurred his ire. The appellant objected to the application at the lower court and contended that he could not be tried by way of a motion for enforcement of a bond under section 299(2) of Act 30, aimed at punishing him for breach of the peace. He insisted that he should have rather been charged with a fresh count of offence for breaches of the peace under section 207 of Act 29. According to the appellant, the impugned motion could not be a substitute for a charge sheet for his criminal prosecution. He insisted that the District Court had become functus officio in respect of suit numbered: AR/AO/DC4/569/22, and for that matter, lacked jurisdiction to entertain the respondent’s application.

The lower court heard arguments and dismissed the appellant’s objection to its jurisdiction. The court assumed jurisdiction to hear the application for the enforcement of the bond