APETI ALIAS KUSORNU vs. THE REPUBLIC [1984]DLCA838

Date	1984-11-19
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1984]DLCA838

ADADE J.S.C.

MENSA BOISON JA

OSEI HWERE J.A.

APPLICANT IN PERSON

NO APPEARANCE BY OR FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1984]DLCA838
																																						<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" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

APETI ALIAS KUSORNU <o:p></o:p>

{COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 1 GLR 139<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
19 NOVEMBER 1984<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

APPLICANT IN PERSON<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">

ADADE J.S.C., MENSA BOISON AND OSEI HWERE JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ADADE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Adade
J.S.C. delivered the ruling of the court. The applicant was convicted by the
High Court, Ho on 26 April 1982 on a charge of murder, and sentenced to death.
Soon afterwards, she filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. For some reason,
the appeal has, for two and a half years now, not been heard, and she has,
rightly or wrongly, filed this “motion on notice to expedite the hearing of her
pending appeal” asking “for an order granting a date for hearing” her appeal.
In other words, she is saying that the appeal has been delayed long enough and
should now be heard.<o:p></o:p>Any
prisoner, and more particularly a prisoner in the circumstances of the
applicant, is entitled to have her appeal heard quickly. She seems to have no
means of questioning what is clearly an undue delay in disposing of her appeal.
So she has resorted to this “motion.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It would
seem to us that, given the substance of the “complaint”, applications of this
nature should be dealt with administratively and steps taken to expedite the
hearing of the appeal. There is no point in this court fixing “an early hearing
date”, if, say, the record is not ready. Is not this a matter which the
administration ought to take up and deal with, and then, everything being in
order, just list the appeal for hearing?<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
registrar informs us, off the record, that prisoners facing delays often resort
to this kind of application. We think it is pointless to encourage this
practice since the courts cannot make any effective orders relative to the
“motions.” On the contrary, the registry must be prevailed upon to expedite the
preparation of the records, etc. so that appeals, especially criminal appeals,
may be listed and heard quickly. If the registry cannot discharge its function
in this regard promptly and satisfactorily, we do not see what orders from this
court, based on “motions” for early hearing, can do.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Perhaps
the Chief Justice may wish to give some directives on this. It may be that a
better way of going about their grievances is for the prisoners to write
letters of complaint to the Chief Justice, instead of filing motions. The Chief
Justice may then bring some pressure to bear on the registry to expedite
action.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As far as
the present application is concerned, we do not see the value in any order that
this court may see fit to make. We cannot dismiss the application, since
frankly we cannot say that it is unmeritorious. There is a lot to be said for
it—a delay of two and a half years in a criminal appeal is not an insignificant
delay whatever the circumstances. On the other hand we cannot grant it either
by fixing a hearing date. Such an order will achieve nothing if the registry
continues to be inactive.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
circumstances, we are of the opinion that the proper course is to adjourn the
application, with a direction that it be brought to the notice of the Chief
Justice, special attention being drawn to article 26 (3) of the Constitution,
1979 which requires that criminal records must be prepared and supplied to
accused persons within six months at the most.<o:p></o:p>

</main>