REPUBLIC vs. KORLE GONNO DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GRADE I; EX PARTE AMPOMAH [1991]DLCA2309

Date	1991-03-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1991]DLCA2309

AMPIAH JA

AMUAH JA

OFORI-BOATENG JJ.A.

SAM BADDOO S.A.G. CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY (WITH HIM MRS ANSONG CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE REPUBLIC .

NANA AKUFO-ADDO (WITH HIM AFARI-YEBOAH) FOR THE APPLICANT-RESPONDENT.

[1991]DLCA2309
																																						<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>KORLE
GONNO DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GRADE I; EX PARTE AMPOMAH<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF
APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1991] 1
GLR 353<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: 21 MARCH 1991<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>SAM
BADDOO, S.A.G., CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY (WITH HIM MRS ANSONG, CHIEF 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">

NANA AKUFO-ADDO
(WITH HIM AFARI-YEBOAH) FOR THE APPLICANT-RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

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

</div>JUDGMENT
OF OFORI-BOATENG J.A.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal against the ruling of the High Court, Accra presided over by Aryeetey
J. The facts briefly are as follows: On 29 January 1990, Emmanuel Atta Ampomah
died at the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital. On the same day, an autopsy was
conducted on the deceased by a pathologist, Dr. William Minnow Simmons, in the
presence of one Dr. Boateng, a nephew of the deceased.<o:p></o:p>It would
appear that as Dr. Boateng did not suspect any foul play regarding his uncle’s
death, he somehow rushed Dr. Simmons to do only a “partial post-mortem” just to
verify the clinical diagnosis of cerebrovascular accident. And so if death had
been caused by poisoning, for example, he could not have known through that
partial post-mortem.<o:p></o:p>Later,
the relatives of the deceased expressed dissatisfaction with this autopsy and
demanded another one from a different source. The second autopsy was carried out
in the department of pathology under the general supervision of Dr. Felix Dodu.
There also it was said: “The immediate cause of death is undetermined.”<o:p></o:p>In the
light of these facts and the conclusion of the report from the doctors who did
the autopsy, the District Court Magistrate, Korle Gonno, in his capacity as the
coroner of that jurisdictional district where the death occurred, decided to
hold a coroner’s inquiry into the death of the deceased to ascertain the cause
of the death. In the course of his inquest, he was stopped in his tracks by an
order from the High Court, at the instance of one Madam Flora Ampomah, the
widow of the deceased, because of the pendency of certiorari and prohibition
proceedings against the inquest. Madam Ampomah interceded because she had been
suspected of having administered poison to her husband, hence the husband’s
family’s unhappiness about the two autopsies. She also thought the rejection of
the autopsies as well as the coroner’s inquest, which had culminated in her being
questioned at the inquest, were unwarranted harassments as a few months
previously she had been interrogated by the police on the suspicion of having a
hand in her husband’s death.<o:p></o:p>The
learned High Court judge who heard the certiorari application called evidence
and came to the conclusion that there was ample evidence from the doctors who
conducted the autopsy that the cause of the death of the deceased was clear;
that he died of natural causes, hypertension and diabetes mellitus. The coroner
therefore had no mandate under the Coroners Act, 1960 (Act 18) to conduct any
inquiry. His inquest was therefore ultra vires and must be quashed, and a
continuation of it prohibited. It is against this ruling that this appeal has
been lodged in this court.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the Republic, Mr Baddoo, Chief State Attorney, raised an important point
which I intend dealing with immediately for, although it was not the first
ground of appeal, it has all the characteristics of an incisive preliminary
point which can end this appeal decisively. He urged that the learned judge
erred in law when he found that the applicant had locus standi to bring the
application for certiorari. To buttress this argument he cited holding (6) of
State v. Asantehene’s Divisional Court Bl: Ex parte Kusada [1963] 2 G.L.R. 238
at 242, S.C. which 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">&nbsp;“(6) An applicant for an order of certiorari
must be either a person aggrieved or a person who has a real or substantial
interest in the proceedings sought to be quashed. The appellant was not a party
to the proceedings before the Asantehene’s Divisional Court BI. He did not
claim to have either a vested or reversionary interest in the property in
question ... neither had he shown any peculiar grievance of his own beyond some
inconvenience suffered in common by the general public.”<o:p></o:p>Counsel
argued in effect that certiorari is an order from the High Court for seeing to
it that inferior tribunals keep within their proper jurisdiction. Such a duty
had nothing to do with the applicant. In fact the applicant’s interest was like
that of the general public that has an interest to ensure that judicial bodies
keep within the law; and such a position did not afford the applicant here the
proper locus standi to start the certiorari proceedings.<o:p></o:p>A careful
reading of Ex parte Kusada (supra</main>