THE REPUBLIC VS DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT (TAMALE) EX PARTE: IBRAHIM AWAL

DECISION

Introduction The applicant herein (defendant in the court below) was sued at the District Court, Tamale for a refund of cash the sum of Twenty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHs 20, 000. 00)being the payment for the cost of plot number 209, Block B, Lahagu, a village along Tamale-Salaga road in the Northern region land that the Applicant sold to the Interested Party (plaintiff at the court below). The Applicant pleaded liable with explanation but after the court recorded the explanation, the Magistrate found that the explanation of the Applicant was untenable and found the Applicant liable to the claim.

The court entered final judgment for the Interested Party for the recovery of cash the sum of GHs 20, 000. 00 and thereafter awarded cost of GHs 5, 000. 00 against the Applicant.

The court did not award interest. Not satisfied with the judgment of the District court, the Applicant engaged the services of a lawyer to file this judicial review application in the nature of certiorari to quash the decision of the District court.

Applicant case The summary of the applicant’s case as evidenced by his affidavit in support of the motion paper is as follows; That the interested party issued a writ of summons containing particulars of claim, reliefs and summary of subject matter of claim against him on 14/4/2023 at the District court, Tamale.

A copy of the writ of summons was attached to the application and marked as exhibit A. That per the hearing notice accompanying the writ of summons, the case was fixed for hearing on 27/4/2023. That on 27/4/23 he appeared before the District Court and without being sworn-in he was interrogated by the judge on the matter wherein, he admitted having a contract with the plaintiff for the sale and purchase of land and also receiving consideration.

That even though there was initial problem with the transfer of the land to plaintiff this was later resolved and documents covering the property was given to the plaintiff.

That the plaintiff did not give evidence in court for the Applicant to cross-examine him to enable the court to make findings.

A copy of the judgment was attached to the application and marked as exhibit B. That he is advised by his counsel and verily believe same to be true that by his explanation he gave to the court, he had a defence to the action and the court should have ordered him to file answer to the plaintiff claim.

That he is further advised by his counsel and verily believe same to be true that the