REPUBLIC vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GRADE 1, TARKWA; EX PARTE PANYIN III AND OTHERS [1982]DLHC2181

REPUBLIC vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GRADE 1, TARKWA; EX PARTE PANYIN III AND OTHE... [1982]DLHC2181

Date	1982-01-11
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1982]DLHC2181

TWUMASI J.

JAMES MERCER FOR THE APPLICANTS.

GAISIE FOR THE RESPONDENTS

[1982]DLHC2181
																																						<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 GRADE 1, TARKWA; EX PARTE PANYIN III AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 552<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:
11 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">

JAMES MERCER FOR THE APPLICANTS. <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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TWUMASI J.<o:p></o:p>Pursuant
to leave granted by this court on 7 September 1981, this court was moved on 9
November 1981 by Mercer, counsel for the applicants, for the orders of
certiorari and prohibition to issue against a certain criminal summons issued
by the District Magistrate Grade 1, Tarkwa, dated 13 August 1981 and all orders
made in connection therewith particularly the orders dated 12 and 25 August
1981. Under section 22 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), it is
provided that:<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">“Whenever
a District Magistrate is informed on oath that any person is likely to commit a
breach of the peace or disturb the public peace, or to do any wrongful act that
may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public peace, the
Magistrate may require him to show cause why he should not be ordered to
execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for such period
as the Magistrate thinks fit.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Section
24 of Act 30 provides that whenever it is necessary to require any person to
show cause under section 23, the magistrate shall make an order in writing
setting forth: (a) the substance of the information received; (b) the amount of
the bond; (c) the purpose of the bond and its term; and (d) the number,
character and class of sureties. The procedure for requiring any person to show
cause is by issuing a criminal summons directed to the person and section 27
requires that a copy of any written order made under section 24 should
accompany the criminal summons and be served on the person concerned.<o:p></o:p>The brief
facts of the case as can fairly and reasonably be gathered from the proceedings
were as follows: Upon the basis of an information he received that the life and
peace of somebody were in danger, the learned magistrate made an order
purporting to be an order under section 24 of Act 30. The order is dated 12
August 1981. The following day the learned magistrate issued a criminal summons
requiring the persons against whom the order of 12 August was made to appear
before the court to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute a bond
to keep the peace.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
hearing of the criminal summons had already been deferred to 25 August 1981. On
the latter date, the learned magistrate merely recorded certain allegations
made by Sam Esq., who held Gaisie’s brief, for the complainants, and without
hearing evidence from those against whom the complaint was made, ordered them
to execute the bond and ordered the apprehension of those against whom the
complaint was made but had failed to appear before the court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The case
was then adjourned to 2 September 1981. When sitting of the court resumed on 2
September, Gaisie, for the complainants, and Quarshie, for those accused of
disturbing the peace, told the learned magistrate that the criminal summons
issued on 13 August was not accompanied by a copy of the order made on 12
August as required by section 27 of Act 30 and therefore the summons and the
order ought to be rescinded. The learned magistrate declared the summons a
nullity, rescinded it and made an order for fresh summons to be issued.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It has
been argued by counsel for the applicants herein that the criminal summons was
a nullity because it failed to comply with section 24 of Act 30 and since it
was a nullity the learned magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear and determine
any matter thereunder. It was also argued that the orders of 12 August 1981
were totally null and void because like the order dated 25 August they failed
to state the nature of the information. With the greatest respect, I am unable
to share the view expressed by both learned counsel and the learned magistrate
that the mere omission of the information in the order of 12 August 1981 made
the proceedings a nullity or that failure to accompany the criminal summons
with the order of 12 August made the proceedings invalid.<o:p></</main>