ESSIEM vs. THE REPUBLIC [1994]DLCA729

Date	1994-02-03
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1994]DLCA729

OFORI-BOATENG JA

ADJABENG JA

LUTTERODT JJA

ATTA AKYEA FOR THE APPLICANT

A K GYAMBIBY STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1994]DLCA729
																																						<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">ESSIEM<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 457<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: 3
FEBRUARY 1994<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>ATTA AKYEA 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">

A K GYAMBIBY, STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE REPUBLIC. <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 1.0pt 0in">

OFORI-BOATENG, ADJABENG AND LUTTERODT JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF OFORI-BOATENG JA.<o:p></o:p>On 3 August 1993 the applicant, Augustine Kwasi Esseim, applied to
the Court of Appeal for an order granting an extension of time to file a
petition of appeal against the decision of the Greater Accra Regional Public
Tribunal. Eventually after the necessary papers had become available and filed,
the application was put before this court on 13 December 1993 for
consideration.<o:p></o:p>It was at that time the counsel for the Republic raised a
preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of this court to hear the application
before it. Mr. Anthony Gyambiby, counsel for the Republic , argued that the
applicant was convicted on 15 December 1992. At that time all appeals from the
Greater Accra Regional Public Tribunal lay with the National Public Tribunal.
The National Public Tribunal ceased to exist by the operation of section 7(3)
of the transitional provisions of the Constitution, 1992, Sched 1 which
provides:<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">“(3) The National Public Tribunal shall cease to exist upon
completion of the partly heard cases . . . or within six months after the
coming into force of this Constitution, whichever is earlier.”<o:p></o:p>Counsel pointed out that it was not until one month after the
public tribunal had ceased to exist and nine months after his conviction that
the applicant filed his application. At that time the court before which he
could properly have filed the application had ceased to exist.<o:p></o:p>He further referred to section 7(4) of the transitional provisions
of the Constitution, 1992 which states:<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">“(4) All cases other than those referred to in subsection (1) of
this section pending before the National Public Tribunal immediately before the
coming into force of this Constitution, shall be transferred to such court or
tribunal as the Chief Justice may direct.”<o:p></o:p>Counsel concluded that no case could be held to be pending where
no papers on that case had been filed before any court. As for the Court of
Appeal, nowhere in the Constitution, 1992 has it been given the power to hear
appeals from the National Public Tribunal. To reinforce this point, he referred
to article 137(1) and (2) of the Constitution, 1992 that spells out the
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.<o:p></o:p>Counsel for the applicant argued that the interpretation put on
word “pending” by the prosecution was too narrow and that section 7(1) and (4)
of the transitional provisions of the Constitution, 1992 when read together
indicates that this application including the general right of appeal had been
pending before the National Public Tribunal since the day judgment was given
against the accused, and long before the National Public Tribunal became
defunct, six months after the coming into force of the Constitution, 1992. on
this point counsel referred to the Court of Appeal decision of CFAO v Zacca [1972]
1 GLR 366 at 368, CA, holding (4). He also cited the recent decision of the
Supreme Court in Republic v Adu-Boahene [1993-94] 2 GLR 324, SC.<o:p></o:p>From the argument of both counsel there is no doubt that the whole
matter hinges on the proper interpretation of the expression “pending” in our
jurisprudence. If the case of Essiem v The Republic (supra) was pending before
the National Public Tribunal before it became defunct, then section 7(4) of the
transitional provisions of the Constitution, 1992 shall be applicable and as it
would not be a partly heard case and with no living court to hear it, it shall
be transferred to “such court . . . as the Chief Justice may direct,” and that
court shall have jurisdiction to deal with every aspect of the case thus
transferred.<o:p></o:p>On the other hand, as the case is not a part-heard, if it was not
pending before the National Tribunal before it ceased to exist, then the Chief
Justice has no power to put it before the Court of Appeal or any other court,
and no court will have jurisdiction to deal with any aspect of the case.<o:p></o:p>