REPUBLIC vs. ABBEY [1991]DLCA2298

Date	1991-02-07
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1991]DLCA2298

ESSIEM JA

AMUAH JA

OFORI-BOATENG JJ.A.

OSAFO SAMPONG PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

W. A. N. ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1991]DLCA2298
																																						<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>ABBEY<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF
APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1991] 1
GLR 182<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 7 FEBRUARY 1991<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>OSAFO
SAMPONG, PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE REPUBLIC.<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">

W. A. N.
ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

ESSIEM,
AMUAH AND OFORI-BOATENG JJ.A. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT
OF AMUAH J.A<o:p></o:p>The
Republic appeals from the decision of Essilfie-Bondzie J. granting an
application for an order for extension of time to enable the respondent to
apply for an order of certiorari to bring up and quash the conviction and
sentence imposed on the respondent on 7 September 1964.<o:p></o:p>The
record of the learned circuit judge reads:<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">“Case No.
1405/64. <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">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The State <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">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; V<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">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Samuel Abbey<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">First
count—Pleaded guilty. Convicted accordingly. Twelve pounds or one month. Second
count—Pleaded guilty. Convicted accordingly. One day’s imprisonment plus £40 or
two months concurrent and non-cummulative R/O.”<o:p></o:p>Both the
police and court dockets could not be traced and the respondent did not appeal
against his conviction and sentence. In due course he was duly nominated,
elected and installed as a paramount chief of Prampram. In 1987 he applied to
the Ghana Government for recognition but the government refused to grant him
recognition and to publish his particulars in the Local Government Bulletin or
the Gazette on the ground that he was an ex-convict.<o:p></o:p>With the
view to commencing certiorari proceedings for an order to bring up and quash
the conviction, he applied by motion ex parte for leave but failed to obtain
such an order because the application was not made within six months of the
said conviction or order – see Order 59, r. 3 of the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A). Subsequently, he applied under Order 64, r.
6 of L.N. 140A for extension of time to enable him apply for leave and
succeeded.<o:p></o:p>The
Republic, dissatisfied with the turn of events, appealed against the said order
on the ground that it was unwarranted in law. In arguing the appeal, Mr
Sampong, Principal State Attorney, submitted that there had been an excessive
delay in commencing certiorari proceedings and that the power of the court to
grant extension of time was limited. He referred to Halsbury’s Laws of England
(4th ed.), Vol. 37, at p. 32, para 30 and said the court could decline the
application where there had been an excessive delay. He submitted that the
delay was unreasonable, inexcusable and not bona fide. He further submitted
that the respondent, by his affidavit, knew why he was in court on that day and
there was no obligation on the part of the court to record facts or indicate
that the charge was read and explained in the record.<o:p></o:p>Mr
Adumua-Bossman, learned counsel for the respondent, in reply argued that there
was such an obligation under section 171 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960
(Act 30). He submitted that if the provision was not complied with, the
proceedings became null and void. He cited Dom v. The Republic [1968] G.L.R.
767; Atinga Frafra v. The Republic [1968] G.L.R. 85 and Watara v. The Republic
[1974] 2 G.L.R. 24 in support of his argument. He further submitted that since
1964 the respondent considered his conviction to be “of no consequence” until
in 1988 when the government refused to recognise him as a chief on the basis of
the said conviction. He concluded by submitting that the expatriate manager who
persuaded him to plead guilty is out of the country.<o:p></o:p>