YEBOAH ALIAS KRAMO vs. THE REPUBLIC [1987]DLHC1219

Date	1987-05-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1987]DLHC1219

MENSAH BOISON J.

MANU FOR THE APPELLANT.

NO APPEARANCE BY THE REPUBLIC.

[1987]DLHC1219
																																						<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" >YEBOAH ALIAS KRAMO <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SUNYANI]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[1979] GLR 22<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:
17 MAY 1978<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">

MANU 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 windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

MENSAH BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant was a litigant in a civil case before the District Court Grade II,
Duayaw Nkwanta. At the conclusion of the judgment therein, delivered by the
presiding magistrate and which went against him, the appellant was alleged
instantly, in the presence of the court, to have uttered the following words:
“You have not judged the case according to law.” Thereupon the appellant was
arrested, apparently at the magistrate’s direction, and the next day those
words formed the subject of a criminal charge of “insulting court” contrary to
section 224 of Act 29, before the same magistrate. The particulars of offence
read:<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">“Kwame
Ali farmer, for that you on the 14th day of February 1978 at D/Nkwanta . . .
did insult the court after judgment had been given against you in a civil suit
by uttering the following words at the top of your voice while the court was in
session thus ‘You have not judged the case according to law’.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant according to the record pleaded guilty to the charge and, on
conviction, was sentenced to six month’s imprisonment with hard labour. It is
against that conviction and sentence that the appellant by counsel has not
appealed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first
ground argued by Mr. Manu is the terse and unparticularised complaint that,
“The judgment was contrary to natural justice.” From his submissions, however,
it became clear that he complained of bias in that the magistrate was a judge
in his own cause. His point was that the incident in the civil case must have
been taken as a personal affront, and in hearing the case himself, the magistrate
denied the appellant of the right to a fair and unbiased trial.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In view
of certain aspects of the submissions of both counsel it is necessary to give
consideration first to the competence or jurisdiction of the magistrate.
Sections 17 and 18 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), dealing with
some powers of a magistrate are relevant to the point, and provide as follows:
“17. When any offence is committed in the presence of a District Magistrate
within the local limits of his jurisdiction he may himself arrest or order any
person to arrest the offender, and may thereupon, subject to the provisions
herein contained as to bail, commit the offender to custody.<o:p></o:p>18.
Within the local limits of his jurisdiction any District Magistrate may arrest
or direct the arrest in his presence of any person whose arrest upon a warrant
he could have lawfully ordered if the facts known to him at the time of making
or directing the arrest had been stated before him on oath by some other
person.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I am
unable to agree to the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that
the power to “commit ... to custody” in section 17 (supra) enables the
magistrate himself to try the offence occasioning the arrest. The committal to
custody is used in contradistinction to his power to grant bail; the power to
commit to custody being exercisable as it were on the spot, before the person
may be brought before the court on a charge.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Like
section 17, section 18 also confers a power of arrest either by the magistrate
himself or at his direction. But it is by virtue of this territorial
jurisdiction that the magistrate exercises jurisdiction </main>