STATE vs. ASANTEHENE'S DIVISIONAL COURT B1; EX PARTE KUSADA [1963]DLSC12192

Date	1963-07-05
Suit No.	[1963] 2 GLR 238-276
Citation No.	[1963]DLSC12192

KORSAH C.J.

ADUMUA BOSSMAN JSC

CRABBE JSC.

VICTOR OWUSU FOR THE APPELLANT

DR. DE GRAFT-JOHNSON FOR THE RESPONDENT

[1963]DLSC12192
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >STATE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ASANTEHENE'S
DIVISIONAL COURT B1; EX PARTE KUSADA<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

[1963]
2 GLR 238-276&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 5TH JULY 1963<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>VICTOR OWUSU FOR THE
APPELLANT<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">KORSAH
C.J., ADUMUA BOSSMAN JSC, CRABBE JSC.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: black; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid black 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">&nbsp;<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">JUDGMENT OF KORSAH C.J<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[His lordship stated the facts as
contained in the headnote and continued:] The procedure regulating an
application for the writ of certiorari is provided by the Supreme [High] Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules, [1954],1 Order 59, r. 3 thus:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">"Leave shall not be granted to
apply for an order of certiorari to remove any judgment, order, conviction or
other proceeding for the purpose of its being quashed, unless the application
for leave is made not later than six months after the date of the proceeding or
such shorter period as may be prescribed by any enactment; and where the
proceeding is subject to appeal and a time is limited by law for the bringing
of the appeal, the Court or Judge may adjourn the application for leave until
the appeal is determined or the time for appealing has expired."<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Under special circumstances, the court
or a judge may enlarge the time limited for making the application under Order
64, r. 6 of the above-mentioned rules.&nbsp; The said Orders 59 and 64 of our
rules of court are replicas of the English Rules of Supreme Court, by virtue of
which an application for an order of certiorari is either granted or refused.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The learned judge of the court below,
upon an ex parte motion by the applicant made the following order on the 5th
June, 1961, "Court: I think on the facts of this case I ought to exercise
my discretion and I enlarge the time for bringing this application.&nbsp; I
also grant leave to apply for an order of certiorari."<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">At the subsequent hearing of the
application pursuant to the above order, counsel for the respondent contended
that leave had been wrongly granted contrary to Order 59, r. 3. In reply counsel
for the appellant stated that "time had already been enlarged by the
court." It is obvious from the record that no application for an
extension, supported by affidavit setting out the facts upon which the
extension might be granted had been filed at the time the extension was granted
or at any time during the hearing before the court.&nbsp; But it appears that
at the hearing of the ex parte motion for leave, counsel for the applicant
verbally applied for an extension.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">While it is correct to say that, if the
power is conferred, a judge may&nbsp;exercise his discretion, it should be
remembered that such discretion should be exercised judicially; if therefore
the conditions imposed therewith have not been fulfilled, it is open to the
party aggrieved by the exercise of such discretion, to raise the matter in the
course of the proceedings, as well as on appeal.<o:p></o:p>