REPUBLIC vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KETA AND ANOTHER; EX PARTE HEDO [1971]DLHC2156

Date	1971-06-23
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLHC2156

FRANCOIS J.

E. D. KOM FOR THE APPLICANT.

I. N. WUAKU FOR THE RESPONDENT.

AKWEI-ADDO ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE MAGISTRATE.

[1971]DLHC2156
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KETA AND ANOTHER; EX PARTE HEDO <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, HO]<o:p></o:p>&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1971] 2 GLR 459<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
23 JUNE 1971.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

E. D. KOM FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

FRANCOIS J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.<o:p></o:p>In these
proceedings counsel moves on behalf of the applicant Husunugbo Hedo for an
order of certiorari to quash the order of the District Magistrate, Keta, dated
25 May 1970 decreeing penalties on the failure to pay a judgment debt due to
the respondents.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
seem to me uncomplicated. The applicant and another person were brought before
the said district magistrate at Keta on a judgment debtor summons. (The
proceedings before the said magistrate have been exhibited here as exhibit A).
The magistrate without inquiring into the means of the applicant to ascertain
whether he was wilfully refusing to pay the debt in terms of the Courts
Ordinance, Cap. 4 (1951 Rev.), Sched. II, Order 43, made the following
pronouncement:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“Ruling.
The judgment creditors submitted that the order of the court is that the
judgment debtors to pay the cost before going forward with the action. The
judgment debtors took fresh action without complying with the order of the
court. Judgment creditors maintain that inasmuch as judgment debtors can pay
for the services of a lawyer to go to the High Court, they are in position to
pay the costs awarded against them. Judgment debtors have N¢ 20.00 in hand to
pay Order: Balance N¢182.70 plus costs assessed at N¢10.00 to be paid within
seven days in default judgment creditors reserve the right to imprison judgment
debtors for 90 days each.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was
strenuously argued that there was no error on the face of the record as the
order the magistrate made must have followed some inquiry and must have
resulted from a compromise offer by the applicant. Had the matter ended there I
might have accepted this argument of the respondent but on 18 May 1971, the
applicant was apprehended and thrown into a Keta gaol. This is averred in
paragraph (12) of the applicant’s supporting affidavit. Nowhere in the
respondent’s affidavit in opposition is the fact that the applicant’s incarceration
stemmed from the order of 25 May 1970 controverted.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I am
compelled therefore to hold that that fact is not in dispute. Indeed if the
applicant was serving a term of imprisonment independent of the magistrate’s
order one would expect an affidavit apprising this court of that fact from
learned state attorney who appeared for the magistrate. My attention has also
been drawn to the warrant of imprisonment in respect of the applicant and it
certainly is in respect of the judgment debt.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It seems
to me that for a proper determination of this matter both the ruling and order
must be considered together; when this is done it would be seen quite clearly
that without taking evidence the magistrate purported to make an order
conferring a right on the respondents to imprison the applicant in default of
the payment of instalments.<o:p></o:p>