YEVU AND OTHERS vs. THE REPUBLIC [1972]DLHC2427

Date	1972-04-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1972]DLHC2427

FRANCOIS J.

F. T. C. AMORIN FOR THE APPLICANTS.

A. L. DJABATEY SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1972]DLHC2427
																																						<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" >YEVU AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC <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;[1972]
2 GLR 148<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
14 APRIL 1972.<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">

F. T. C. AMORIN FOR THE APPLICANTS.<o:p></o:p>

A. L. DJABATEY, SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE
RESPONDENT.<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>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.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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 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.<o:p></o:p>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.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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:<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">“
’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 answer may properly be made and upheld (a)
when there has been no evidence to prove an essential element in the alleged
offence; (b) when the evidence adduced by the prosecution has been so
discredited as a result of cross-examination or is so manifestly unreliable
that no reasonable tribunal could safely convict upon it. Apart from these two
situations, a tribunal should not in general be called upon to reach a decision
as to conviction or acquittal until the whole of the evidence which either side
wishes to tender has been placed before it. If, however, a submission is made
that there is no case to answer, the decision should depend not so much on
whether the adjudicating tribunal (if compelled to do so) would at that stage
convict or acquit but on whether the evidence is such that a reasonable
tribunal might convict. If a reasonable tribunal might convict on the evidence
so far laid before it, there is a case to answer’.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Neither
Lord Parker C.J. in his practice direction nor Azu Crabbe J.S.C. in the Kassena
case suggested that an unsuccessful submission of no case could be followed by
an appeal. Indeed in none of the numerous decisions on the point has the
question of appeal been raised. Counsel for the applicants cited the case of
Asamoah v. The Republic [1972] 1 G.L.R. 117 where an attempt to </main>