KWAKYE & OTHERS vs. NANA ABABIO II [1982]DLHC2151

Date	1982-01-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1982]DLHC2151

SAPONG J.

KABA FOR APPLICANT.

THE RESPONDENTS IN PERSON.

[1982]DLHC2151
																																						<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" >KWAKYE &amp; OTHERS <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>NANA ABABIO II <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SUNYANI]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 247<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:
25 JANUARY
1982<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">

KABA FOR 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 1.0pt 0in">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SARPONG J.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the applicant says the respondent was granted bail by this court to appear
on a certain date. Two persons, Paul Sika Bentuo and Cosmos Asubonteng stood as
the respondent’s sureties. On the adjourned date the respondent failed to
attend court and so the applicant is in court to have the bail bond estreated.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
sureties through their counsel do say that on the said adjourned date a medical
report was tendered in court to show that the respondent was indisposed and so
was unable to attend court. Nonetheless, the court issued a bench warrant for his
arrest without giving them the opportunity to produce him. Today the applicant
has come to court to estreat the bond.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
procedure adopted to estreat the bond, he submits, is regular. In my view, the
procedure the courts normally adopt is to have the sureties arraigned before
the court and be asked why the bond should not be estreated in the absence of
the respondent. They may then plead with the court to be given time to look for
the respondent and if time is granted to them and they are unable to produce
the respondent then they will be called upon by the court to pay the amount for
which they stood surety or a lesser sum thereof or failing that they would be
imprisoned. This not having been done, I do rule that the motion to estreat the
bond is premature.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
circumstances, I would admit the sureties to bail and give them time to produce
the respondent in court. If at the adjourned date they are unable to produce
him and the reason given for their inability to so produce be not acceptable to
the court then they shall be called upon to pay the amount they stood surety
for.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>