THE REPUBLIC vs THE DISTRICT COURT, ADA

An application for Judicial review in the nature of certiorari was filed by the applicants herein to quash the charges preferred against them in the District Court, Ada in a Criminal Suit titled The Republic vs. Solomon Teye Awudi and 4 others with suit No. 18/2013 and the Judgment delivered therein on 14th July, 2014.

The facts of the case contained in the depositions by the applicants are that on 6th May, 2013 Criminal Summons was issued and served on the applicants herein to appear before the District Court, Ada on 14th May, 2013. The charges preferred against the accused persons (applicants herein) were conspiracy to steal contrary to Section 23 (1) of Act 29 and Stealing Contrary to Section 124 of Act 29. When the applicants appeared before the District court; the Magistrate remanded them into police custody.

They were subsequently admitted to bail by the Human Right Division of the High Court, Accra.

The Respondents herein filed a civil suit against the applicants with respect to the land on which they were charged to have stolen six trucks of sand valued GH₵300. 00. The applicants filed a defence and counterclaim.

The Criminal suit was heard by His Worship Michael Abbey at the District Court, Ada before he was elevated to the Circuit Court and was transferred to Nkawie District Court in Ashanti Region.

According to a search conducted by the applicants herein at the registry of the District Court, Ada and exhibited in this application as exhibit STAJ, the Magistrate was given authorization by Her Ladyship the Chief Justice to complete his part-heard criminal matters.

From the search certificate, the trial judge after his transfer sat on the Criminal part-heard, the subject matter of this application on 4th April, 2014, 16th May, 2015, 16th June, 2014, 18th June, 2014 and delivered his judgment on 14th July, 2015. The reasons for this application as canvassed by the applicants in their statement of case are; the suit was a civil suit and the criminal charges preferred against them was wrongful and illegal; the Chief Justice granted the trial Judge time to determine the matter and the order did not extend the Power of the trial judge to 16th and 17th June and the sittings on those day were void for want of jurisdiction.

The other grounds were that the trial judge acted contrary to the rules of natural justice when he failed to accede to the request for adjournment by the applicants’ lawyer.

The Respondents denied the applicants claim and stated