BANDA vs. THE REPUBLIC [1993]DLCA713

Date	1993-11-18
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1993]DLCA713

ESSIEM JA

LUTTERODT JA

BROBBY JA

SONDEN FOR THE APPLICANT.

GYAMBIBI FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1993]DLCA713
																																						<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">BANDA<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>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1993-94] 1 GLR 19<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: 18TH
NOVEMBER 1993<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>SONDEN FOR THE APPLICANT.<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">

GYAMBIBI FOR THE REPUBLIC.
<o:p></o:p>

ESSIEM, LUTTERODT AND BROBBY JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT BROBBEY JA.<o:p></o:p>The applicant was convicted by the Ashanti Regional Public
Tribunal for unlawful entry and stealing. He was sentenced to life
imprisonment. He has appealed to this court for leave to appeal out of time.<o:p></o:p>Before the application could be heard, Mr. Gyambibi who appeared
for the Republic, raised a preliminary objection. His objection was that this
court has no jurisdiction to hear the case. Arguing his objection, counsel
submitted that the appellant was tried, convicted and sentenced by the Ashanti
Regional Public Tribunal on 12 February 1993. That tribunal was abolished on 7
July 1993 by section 7 of the transitional provisions of the Constitution,
1992. By section 7(4) of those transitional provisions, only cases pending
before the abolished regional public tribunal and National Public Tribunal can
be directed by the Chief Justice to be tried in the Court of Appeal or any
other court. Since the appellant was convicted and sentenced but no appeal was
filed before the National Public Tribunal or in the Ashanti Regional Public
Tribunal to be transmitted to the former, the case involving the applicant
could not be said to be pending in either of the two tribunals. That case could
therefore not be covered by the provisions concerning pending cases.<o:p></o:p>In the absence of specific provisions covering cases which were
not pending, counsel argued that no court has jurisdiction to deal with cases
already disposed of by the regional public tribunal or the National Public
Tribunal. He therefore submitted that this court has no jurisdiction to
entertain the applicant’s case.<o:p></o:p>Mr. Sonden who appeared for the applicant contended on the other
hand that under section 115 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) the Regional
Tribunal created by the Constitution, 1992 is the successor to the former
regional public tribunal. Accordingly to his argument, “successor” meant that
all powers and authority of the former regional public tribunals were vested in
the new Regional Tribunals. Since article 137 of the Constitution, 1992 made
all decisions from the new Regional Tribunal appealable to the Court of Appeal
this court has jurisdiction to hear the case by the combined effect of Act 459,
s 115 and article 137 of the Constitution, 1992.<o:p></o:p>There can be no doubt that the provisions in the Constitution,
1992 cover cases “pending” before the former regional public tribunals and the
National Public Tribunal. There is also no dispute that the instant case was
not pending before any of the former tribunals by the time they were abolished
on 7 July 1993. This case can however be resolved by the meaning to be given to
the word “successor.”<o:p></o:p>As the applicant’s counsel rightly pointed out, the new Regional
Tribunal set up under the Constitution, 1962 is described as the “successor” to
the abolished regional public tribunal by Act 459, s 115. “Successor” has been
interpreted in Chamber’s Twentieth Century Dictionary (Revised ed. 1970) at p.
1102, inter alia, as: “One who, or that which succeeds or comes after:
sometimes, one appointed to succeed. The same book defines the expression “to
succeed” at pp 1102-1103 as: “to come after to follow up in order, to follow:
to take the place of, esp in office, title or possession: to inherit...”<o:p></o:p>Wharton’s Law Lexicon (1957 ed), p. 96 defines “successor” as “one
that follows in the place of another. The correlative of predecessor in the
successor.” Almost the same meanings have been given to the word “successor” in
Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law (1st ed). p 1695, and in Strond’s Judicial
Dictionary (4th ed) at p 2661.<o:p></o:p>When an institution like the new Regional Tribunal succeeds
another institution, my view is that the successor takes over all the powers,
authority and jurisdiction of that which has been replaced. This must
necessarily be the case in order to make the term “successor” meaningful and
complete.<o:p></o:p>If the new Regional Tribunal took over powers, authority and
jurisdiction of the former regional public tribunal than all acts, orders,
rulings and judgments done or given by the latter should be deemed to have been
done or given by the former. It would follow from this that the judgments and
orders of the erstwhile regional public tribunal should be deemed to have been
taken over and become the judgments an</main>