ATISU vs. THE REPUBLIC [1973]DLHC2311

Date	1973-11-09
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2311

ANDOH J.

DR. A. K. P. KLUDZE FOR THE APPELLANT.

[1973]DLHC2311
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">ATISU <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">&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; vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">THE REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, HO]<o:p></o:p>[1974] 1 GLR 53<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

DATE:<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0"> 9 NOVEMBER 1973.<o:p></o:p>

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

<a name="_gjdgxs"></a>DR. A. K. P. KLUDZE FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

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

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ANDOH J.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant, a clerical officer, attached to the District Administrative Office, Kpandu,
was arraigned before a district magistrate at Hohoe, on 20 September 1972 on
charges of five counts of extortion contrary to section 239 (1) of the Criminal
Code, 1960 (Act 29). He pleaded not guilty to each of the five counts. At the
close of the prosecution’s case, learned counsel for the appellant, Dr. Kludze,
made a submission of no case. The learned district magistrate considered the
submission at great length and gave his ruling on it. It is sufficient to say
that the learned magistrate was of the view that the prosecution had adduced a
sufficient and a prima facie case against the accused. Consequently, the
learned district magistrate called upon the appellant to enter into his defence
after rejecting the submission of no case. The appellant, aggrieved by and
dissatisfied with the said ruling, now appeals to this court. In this ruling, I
do not propose to deal with the substance of the submissions made by learned
counsel in the court below and in this court. I do not deem it necessary either
at this stage to review the evidence adduced before the learned trial
magistrate and to decide whether the rejection of the submission by the
magistrate was well or ill-founded according to law.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The only
point I would take at this stage myself is one of technicality and it is this:
Was the order of the district magistrate on the submission of no case an
interlocutory order or a final order? I do not think that in the absence of a
final pronouncement of “guilty” or “not guilty” on the counts charged, it can seriously
be disputed that the order is an interlocutory order and not a final order,
decision or judgment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Be that
as it may, the true test whether a court’s decision is interlocutory or final
is set out by Lord Alverstone C.J. in Bozson v. Altrincham Urban District
Council [1903] 1 K.B. 547, C.A. at pp. 548-549 where he said:<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">“It seems
to me that the real test for determining this question ought to be this: Does
the judgment or order, as made, finally dispose of the rights of the parties?
If it does, then I think it ought to be treated as a final order; but if it
does not, it is then, in my opinion, an interlocutory order.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
Gilbert v. Endean (1878) 9 Ch.D. 259, C.A. at pp. 268-269 Cotton L.J. also
held:<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">“[T]hose
applications only are considered interlocutory which do not decide the rights
of the parties, but are made for the purpose of keeping things in statu quo
till the rights can be decided, or for purpose of obtaining some direction of
the Court as to how the cause is to be conducted, as to what is to be done in
the progress of the cause for the purpose of enabling the Court ultimately to
decide upon the rights of the parties.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Assuming
that I am right in the view I hold, being supported by the above precedents,
that the order of the learned district magistrate rejecting counsel’s
submission of no case was an interlocutory order, then I am afraid this appeal
cannot be said to be properly before the court. I cannot say anything further
than to refer to the provisions of section 19 (4) of the Courts Act, 1971 (Act
372). Subsection (4) of section 19 reads:<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">“A </main>