REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EX PARTE EASTWOOD LTD AND OTHERS [1995]DLSC602

Date	1995-06-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1995]DLSC602

AMUA-SEKYI JSC

BAMFORD-ADDO JSC

CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC

AMPIAH JSC

ADJABENG JSC

JAMES AHENKORAH FOR THE APPLICANTS.

T N WARD-BREW FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1995]DLSC602
																																						<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">REPUBLIC<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">HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EX PARTE EASTWOOD LTD AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1995-96] 1 GLR 689<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">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JAMES AHENKORAH FOR THE APPLICANTS.<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">

T N WARD-BREW FOR THE
RESPONDENTS. <o:p></o:p>

AMUA-SEKYI, BAMFORD-ADDO,
CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN, AMPIAH AND ADJABENG JJSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN<o:p></o:p>Charles Hayfron-Benjamin JSC delivered the ruling at the
invitation of Amua-Sekyi JSC. The preceding matters leading to the present
application originated from the National Public Tribunal before which the
present respondents were tried for certain criminal offences under the Public
Tribunals Law, 1984 (PNDCL 78). The present respondents, it appears were
convicted by that tribunal, but the issue of sentence was not concluded there
and then. This situation arose because the respondents decided to take
advantage of section 1(1) and (2) of the Public Tribunals (Amendment) Law, 1989
(PNDCL 213) by offering restitution or reparations to the State for the losses,
if any, which had been occasioned by their offences. The matter of restitution
and reparation was finally settled on 8 October 1990. The present respondents,
except the first respondent’s plea bargain was accepted by the tribunal and
orders were made confiscating the properties which formed the basis of the case
before Brobbey JA sitting as an additional judge of the High Court to the
State. The respondents promptly appealed to the appeals and review division of
the National Public Tribunal which on or about 16 October 1992 reversed the
judgment of the National Public Tribunal and decreed that the assets of the
respondents be returned to them.<o:p></o:p>It is worthy of note that the National Public Tribunal in the
orders which it made in the course of the plea bargain—and this is conceded by
the applicants—”made the following additional [orders] in its judgment”:<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">“(1) that before full restitution is made by the first accused no
property of the second and third accused companies, ie Priorities Ghana Ltd and
Holex Timber Products Ltd shall be disposed of by any person without the
consent of the trial tribunal; and <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">(2) that the trial tribunal shall make such further orders as it
deems fit.”<o:p></o:p>(The emphasis is mine.) It does not appear that any such consent
was obtained but the applicants contend that further to an advertisement in the
Peoples Daily Graphic of 20 May 1991, they bought the properties in dispute
from the official liquidator and they were therefore the owners of the
properties.<o:p></o:p>It is agreed that at the time of the alleged purchase by the
applicants, the respondents’ appeal was pending. It is not the province of this
application to delve into the ramifications of the various orders of the
National Public Tribunal culminating in their judgment. But it is true to say
that by a majority decision—and that is the judgment of the appellate and
review division of the National Public Tribunal—the decisions of the National
Public Tribunal were set aside and the properties restored to the respondents.<o:p></o:p>The respondents then sued the applicants in the High Court,
generally for the recovery of their properties which the applicants contended
they had purchased. The applicants having lost in the High Court, have chosen
the path of seeking relief by the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction in.
their favour. Hence this application is presented. It must be noted that even
though the suits before Brobbey JA were consolidated, the other plaintiff, the
Social Security Bank, is not interested in this application.<o:p></o:p>At first blush this application appears to present with complex
issues. This state of affairs has been largely contributed to by the parties.
For since the present application was filed on 20 June 1994, the parties,
contrary to the rules, have inundated this court with affidavits and letters,
the latest of these dated 30 May 1995. This practice must be strongly
deprecated. Counsel who practice in this court must be conversant with our
rules and they must abide by them. Nor does it speak well for counsel
indirectly to abet their clients into pretending to supply matter to the court
which properly should have either been included in their affidavits or
statement of case. However, I am satisfied that there has been sufficient
compliance with the rules and the practice requirements to merit consideration
being given to the present application.<o:p></o:p>