Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
April 14, 1972
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.
The applicants were allegedly charged with rioting with offensive weapons contrary to section 199 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). It appears that at the conclusion of the prosecution's case the learned magistrate called on the applicants to enter upon their defence. The applicants, being aggrieved by this ruling, filed a notice of appeal in the High Court, and applied to the district magistrate to stay proceedings. This was refused and the applicants have brought this application seeking an order to stay proceedings in the district court until the determination of the appeal pending before the High Court; and a decision of this court has consequently been sought.
The applicants urge that the charges as laid could not be supported by the evidence and therefore a ruling compelling them to lead evidence was wrong. The applicants further claim the right of appeal on an interlocutory matter under section 324 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30) [which is set out in the headnote]. The record of proceedings is not available so no consideration on the merits is possible. It has been held by a long line of decisions that the right of appeal from a decision of an inferior tribunal must be strictly conferred by statute. Section 324 of Act 30 does not extend the ambit of appeals to embrace interlocutory matters. The whole tenor of that section relates to final orders. If the legislature desired to permit appeals on interlocutory matters under section 324 of Act 30 it would clearly say so. I do not suggest that applications cannot be made to the High Court for the [p.151] exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction in certain circumstances. This proceeds on quite a different premise and is not a statutory right conferred on an appellant. I shall later consider the effect of the Courts of place here.
The practice and procedure applicable on a submission that there is no case to answer has been too well established to admit of controversy now and perhaps a review of some of the cases might not be out of place here.
First, is the celebrated case of State v. Kassena [1962] 1 G.L.R. 144, S.C. There Azu Crabbe J.S.C. at p. 148 adopted with approval Lord Parker C.J.'s famous dictum reported in The Times, 10 February 1962, which I quote below:
" 'Without attempting to lay down any principle of law, we think that as a matter of practice justices should be guided by the following considerations.
A submission that there is no case to
AI Generated Summary
Francois J. addressed an application by accused persons in a district court prosecution for rioting with offensive weapons under section 199 of the Criminal Code to stay further proceedings pending a High Court appeal against a magistrate’s interlocutory ruling that they must enter their defence after the prosecution case. The applicants asserted a right to interlocutory appeal under section 324 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court held that appeals from inferior tribunals in criminal matters are strictly statutory, and section 324 relates only to final orders, not interlocutory rulings such as an overruled no-case submission. Drawing on State v. Kassena and Kingdon C.J.’s guidance in R. v. Ajani, the court emphasized established practice against interlocutory appeals on no-case rulings. Further, even if the Courts Act were relevant, the applicants had not sought leave or complied with section 19(6) and Rules of Court, and their attempt to circumvent these requirements failed. The application was dismissed.