GALLEY vs. THE REPUBLIC [1995]DLCA556

Date	1995-02-01
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1995]DLCA556

AMUAH JA

ACQUAH JA

BADDOO JA

APPLICANT IN PERSON.

AMONOO-MONNEY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1995]DLCA556
																																						<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">GALLEY<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>[1995-96] 1 GLR 553<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: 1
FEBRUARY 1995<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>APPLICANT IN PERSON.<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">

AMONOO-MONNEY, DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, FOR THE REPUBLIC. <o:p></o:p>

AMUAH, ACQUAH AND BADDOO JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF ACQUAH JA.<o:p></o:p>The issue involved in this application is the determination of the
court or tribunal to entertain appeals by aggrieved parties in cases tried
between 7 January 1993 and 6 July 1993, under section 7(1) of the transitional
provisions of the Constitution, 1992. This of course, implies that such
aggrieved parties have a right of appeal. But do they?<o:p></o:p>The applicant, Yaw Galley, was tried on two counts of fraud by the
Tema sub-regional public tribunal. He was convicted on 14 June 1993, and
sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with hard labour. On 27 September 1994 he
filed the instant application for extension of time to lodge his appeal at the
Court of Appeal.<o:p></o:p>Undoubtedly, the Constitution, 1992 did not retain the public
tribunals as established under the Public Tribunals Law, 1984 (PNDCL 78). And
the transitional provisions in the Constitution, 1992 gave these public
tribunals six months from the coming into force of the Constitution, 1992 to
wind up. And section 7(1) of the transitional provisions of the Constitution,
1992 gave the said tribunals authority to complete cases which were partly
heard before them at the time the Constitution, 1992 came into force. The
tribunals affected under article 7(1) of the Constitution, 1992 are:<o:p></o:p>(a) National Public Tribunal;<o:p></o:p>(b) Regional Public Tribunals;<o:p></o:p>(c) District Public Tribunals; and<o:p></o:p>(d) Community Public Tribunals.<o:p></o:p>Section 7(3) of the transitional provisions of the Constitution,
1992 provided that the National Public Tribunal shall cease to exist on the
completion of its partly heard cases or within six months after the coming into
force of the Constitution, 1992, which ever is earlier; while section 7(4)
provided for the transfer by the Chief Justice of all cases pending before the
National Public Tribunal immediately before the coming into force of the
Constitution, 1992 to such court or tribunal as the Chief Justice might
determine. It is quite clear from the provisions of section 7 of the
transitional provisions of the Constitution, 1992 that unlike the National
Public Tribunal, no provision was made for pending cases before the other
tribunals immediately before the coming into force of the Constitution, 1992.
But this has now been taken care of in the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459). The real
problem is this: To which court or tribunal during the transitional period
should a person convicted by any of these tribunals in cases tried under
section 7(1) of the transitional provisions of the Constitution, 1992, lodge
his appeal?<o:p></o:p>The transitional provisions do not give any direction or guidance
on this.<o:p></o:p>The learned Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Amonoo-Monney, has
in a very able and persuasive argument submitted that persons aggrieved by
decisions delivered during the transitional period have a right of appeal; and
that in the case of the applicant since section 115(2) of Act 459 provides that
the Regional Tribunals established under the Constitution, 1992 are successors
of the regional public tribunals existing before the coming into force of the
Constitution, 1992, the applicant can lodge his instant appeal at the court
which is empowered to hear appeals from the regional public tribunals.<o:p></o:p>Now can it be said that from the language of Part III of the
transitional provisions, those aggrieved by the decisions of the tribunals empowered
under section 7(1) of the transitional provisions of the Constitution, 1992 to
complete their part-heard cases had no right of appeal? Clearly not! For the
transitional provisions did not deal with the rights of litigants. PNDCL 78
under which the public tribunals were established conferred rights of a</main>