REPUBLIC vs. CIRCUIT TRIBUNAL, HO; EX PARTE KWAWUKUMEY [2001]DLHC1228

Date	2001-06-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2001]DLHC1228

ASARE KORANG J

MENSAH-ETSIE FOR THE APPLICANTS.

MRS FELICIA OKYERE DARKO PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2001]DLHC1228
																																						<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">CIRCUIT TRIBUNAL, HO; EX PARTE KWAWUKUMEY<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, HO]<o:p></o:p>[2001-2002]
1 GLR 690<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>MENSAH-ETSIE
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">

MRS
FELICIA OKYERE DARKO, PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Asare Korang J. <o:p></o:p>The
applicants appeared before the Circuit Tribunal, Ho charged with conspiracy to
defraud by false pretences and defrauding by false pretences contrary to
sections 23(1) and 131 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29).<o:p></o:p>I
do not find it compelling to give details of the evidence led in support of the
charges. It is sufficient to say that at the close of the case for the
prosecution, a submission of no case to answer was made on behalf of the
applicants by their counsel. Thereafter the chairman of the trial tribunal who
was sitting with a lay panel delivered a ruling upholding the submission of no
case on the ground that the evidence disclosed no fraud on the part of the
applicants but only a breach of contract redressible through a civil action.
The chairman, for this reason, acquitted and discharged the applicants. The two
panel members sitting on the case with the chairman disagreed with the decision
of the chairman but failed to give any reason or reasons, either verbal or
written, why their opinion or judgment should prevail.<o:p></o:p>The
ruling of the chairman of the trial tribunal was handed down on 29 September
2000. Since then, the lay panel members have failed to give any reason or
reasons why in their opinion the applicants should be called upon to answer the
charges preferred against them. The applicants therefore brought this
application for mandamus to compel the two lay panel members to give reasons
for disagreeing with the written opinion of the chairman. The applicants
contend that they are desirous of appealing to the Regional Tribunal for
redress but their appeal cannot be heard unless the panel members give reasons
to buttress their conclusion that the applicants be called upon to open their
defence.<o:p></o:p>It
is to be noted that the chairman of the trial tribunal carefully and
meticulously paraphrased his own ruling and the decision of the majority panel
members in the following words:<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">“The
minority opinion is that after carefully looking at the submission of no case
of learned counsel for the defence, the accused persons need not be called upon
to open their defence They ought to be acquitted and discharged. The opinion of
the majority is however that the three accused persons have a case to answer.”<o:p></o:p>Now,
it is provided in section 45(1) of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) as follows:<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">“45.
(1) The determination of any question befor</main>