ALIPUI AND OTHERS vs. THE REPUBLIC [1990]DLHC1961

Date	1990-06-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1990]DLHC1961

MENSAH J.

MENSAH-ETSI FOR THE APPELLANTS.

MISS KWAWUKUME SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1990]DLHC1961
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">ALIPUI AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, HO]<o:p></o:p>[1992] 1 GLR 96<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">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MENSAH-ETSI FOR THE APPELLANTS.<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">

MISS KWAWUKUME SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF MENSAH J.<o:p></o:p>This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the ruling or
order of the District Magistrate Court Grade I, Keta dismissing the submission
of no case made by the appellants’ counsel. The main ground of appeal is that
the learned trial magistrate’s order is unreasonable having regard to the
evidence.<o:p></o:p>The brief facts of the case are that the complainant and the
paternal aunts of the appellants litigated over a piece of land before the
Circuit Court, Denu. Then on 28 March 1988 the said circuit court gave judgment
in favour of the aunts of the appellants and on that day the appellants went
onto the disputed land and caused damage to some economic trees thereon. They
further destroyed some moulded blocks and cut down the fence of the
complainant. A report was made to the police by the complainant and the
appellants were charged before the District Magistrate Court Grade I, Keta.<o:p></o:p>After the complainant had testified before the trial court,
counsel for the appellants did not cross-examine him but instead made a
submission of no case which was overruled by the court. It is this ruling or
order which the appellants, being aggrieved at, have appealed against on the
ground stated earlier in this judgment.<o:p></o:p>Arguing the appeal, the appellants’ counsel submitted, inter alia,
that since the complainant admitted there was a land dispute between him and
the paternal aunts of the appellants, then by section 180 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30) a bona fide question of title has been raised and
therefore the trial court did not have jurisdiction to go on hearing the case
against the appellants.<o:p></o:p>Counsel went on further to argue that the Anlos do inherit
patrilineally and since the aunts of the appellants were parties who won
judgment in respect of the said disputed land at the Circuit Court, Denu, they
were directly affected and therefore a bona fide question or claim to title was
raised and therefore the submission of no case should not have been dismissed
by the trial district court.<o:p></o:p>In her reply, counsel for the Republic argued that the important
provision in section 180 of Act 30 for its invocation is “if the trial court,
is of the opinion that a bona fide question of title to land is raised it shall
discharge the accused.” She therefore submitted that the appellants did not
have direct title to the land and were not parties to the suit before the
Circuit Court, Denu and therefore the trial court was right in dismissing the
submission of no case made by counsel for the appellants. Counsel added that
the appellants were paternal nephews to the owners of the disputed land and
since there was no evidence that they have a claim of right to the said land,
the trial court was right when it refused to accept a submission of no case.<o:p></o:p>Concluding, counsel went further to argue that the law frowns on
persons taking the law into their own hands and that since the losing party
gave notice of appeal on that day the judgment was delivered by the trial
circuit court and the appellants having given no evidence to establish any
claim of right to the land, the trial court was right when it said section 180
of Act 30 did not apply to the case.<o:p></o:p>I must at this stage say that both arguments are interesting and
attractive but it seems to this appellate court that both counsel did not make
any attempt to convince this court how section 180 of Act 30 should be
interpreted or should I say, did not attempt to define the meaning of the said
section 180 of Act 30 which is stated as follows:<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">“180. If, upon the trial of an offence before a District Court,
the Court is of opinion that a bona fide question of title to land is raised it
shall discharge the accused, but this shall not be a bar to fresh proceedings
being instituted in respect of the same facts in a Circuit Court or the High
Court.”<o:p></o:p>What therefore is the judicial interpretation of bona fide
question of title? To me it means a claim of right made in good faith, which
can exist in the eyes of the law or which the law can</main>