THE REPUBLIC vs THE DISTRICT COURT, MADINA & ORS

Introduction The Applicant, KAB FAM Ghana Limited on the 12th day of October 2022 filed the instant Application for Judicial Review by way of an Order of Certiorari.

Case of the Applicant The grounds upon which this application was mounted are that: 1. The District Court Madina presided over by her Ladyship Susanna Nyakotey committed an error of law patent on the face of the record when the learned trial judge erroneously went ahead to dismiss the Applicant’s application to set aside the consent judgment when it was clear there was procedural irregularity in the adoption of consent judgment in the absence of signed terms of settlement.

2. That the District Court, Madina in dismissing the application to set aside the consent judgment failed to consider the breach of natural justice, more particularly the audi alteram partem rule when the consent judgment was entered in the absence of the Applicant without affording him an opportunity to speak on the supposed consent judgment.

On the basis of these grounds, Applicant then sought the following reliefs: a. An order of Certiorari directed at the District Court Madina presided over by her ladyship Susanna Nyakotey, to bring up into this Honourable High Court for the purposes of being quashed and quashing the ruling dated the 9th of September 2022 on the grounds of procedural irregularity or error of law on the face of the proceeding.

b. A declaration that the garnishee order nisi decreed subsequent to the ruling of the district court dated the 9th of September 2022 by her Ladyship Angela Attachie Circuit Judge sitting as an additional Magistrate dated 3rd of October is null on the basis that it was obtained on the back of an irregularity.

c. A consequential order directed at the District Court Madina to set aside the consent judgment dated 4th March 2022 and any subsequent processes filed pursuant to the consent judgment on the ground that it breached the rules of natural justice.

d. Any further order(s) as to this Honourable Court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction may seem meet.

Case of the Interested Party The Interested Party in opposition argued that the Consent judgment impugned by the Applicant was entered as Consent Judgment after Applicant’s counsel had agreed to the terms put forward by the Interested Party.

That the terms reflected in the notes of the court was a reproduction of terms as put as put forward by the Applicant in its Affidavit in Defence in paragraphs 28, 30 and 31.