REPUBLIC vs. CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, TAMALE; EX PARTE VOLTA, SENIOR GAME WARDEN [1985]DLCA976

Date	1985-12-16
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1985]DLCA976

SOWAH AG. C.J

AMUA-SEKYI J

AMPIAH J.

KWAKU BAAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

NO APPEARANCE BY OR FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1985]DLCA976
																																						<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">

REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>

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

[1984-86] 1 GLR 367<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
16 DECEMBER 1985<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">

KWAKU
BAAH FOR THE APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

NO
APPEARANCE BY OR 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">

SOWAH AG. C.J., AMUA-SEKYI AND AMPIAH JJ.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AMPIAH J.<o:p></o:p>Ampiah J.
delivered the judgment of the court. On 5 November 1985 we allowed the appeal
in this case and reserved our reasons for the decision. We now proceed to give
the reasons.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant, Charles Zieche, was arraigned before the Circuit Court, Tamale
charged with offences under the Wildlife Reserved Regulations, 1971 (L.I. 710).
He was found not guilty and was acquitted and discharged. Upon his acquittal,
the trial circuit court judge ordered that “...all the equipment and apparatus
found on him and seized by the officers of the Mole National Park, including
the rifle, should be surrendered to the accused immediately.” It was stated in
the proceedings before this court that the respondent herein appealed against
the order of the circuit court to the High Court and that the said court
dismissed the appeal. We are told that there is a further appeal to the Court
of Appeal. We are not here concerned with that appeal. The instant appeal
concerns the ruling by the High Court judge on an application to set aside an
order of another High Court judge of the same court on an application for
certiorari. On the order by the circuit court judge that the equipment seized
from the appellant herein should be surrendered to him, the respondent applied
for an order of certiorari to have the said order quashed on the ground that it
had been made without jurisdiction. On 28 September 1983, Dove J. sitting at
the High Court, Tamale dismissed the application. The respondent applied by a
motion filed on 25 May 1984 in the same High Court to have the judgment of Dove
J. set aside on the ground that the order was void. On 6 July 1984, Sapong J.
granted the application and set aside the order of Dove J. which had confirmed
the order of the circuit court. It is this order of Sapong J which is the
subject matter of the appeal before us.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
grounds for this appeal were:<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">“1 The
High Court judge erred in law in drawing the conclusion that the senior warden
(game) had exercised his discretion to seize and confiscate the rifle when the
evidence in the trial court was otherwise. 2 The High Court judge erred in law
in holding that the trial circuit court had no jurisdiction to make a restitution
order in respect of the rifle. 3 The High Court judge erred in law in holding
that the order of the trial circuit court as confirmed by the High Court was
null and void.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is not
clear by what jurisdiction Sapong J. tried to set aside the order of Dove J.
The law is that a court has an inherent jurisdiction to set aside its own void
judgment: see Mosi v. Bagyina [1963] 1 G.L.R. 337, S.C. It could be argued
therefore that if the order of Dove J. was void, then perhaps Sapong J., a
judge of the High Court, and for that matter of the same High Court that made
the order, would have jurisdiction to set aside that order.<o:p></o:p>The
question is, was the order of the circuit court void? In his ruling on this,
Sapong J. was of the view that since the subject matter of the restitution
order was not before the court, the circuit court judge had no jurisdiction to
make a restitution order.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Section
145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30) provides that:<o:p></o:p>