ABODAKPI AND ANOTHER vs. THE REPUBLIC [2002]DLCA1151

Date	2002-11-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2002]DLCA1151

OMARI-SASU JA

OWUSU JA

ASIAMAH JA

KWABLA SENANU FOR THE APPLICANT.

A GYAMBIBY (PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY) (WITH HIM AUGUSTINE OBUOR ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2002]DLCA1151
																																						<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">ABODAKPI AND ANOTHER<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>[2001-2002]
1 GLR 450<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<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:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">Date:
22 NOVEMBER 2002<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWABLA
SENANU FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">A GYAMBIBY (PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY)
(WITH HIM AUGUSTINE OBUOR, ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE RESPONDENT. <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:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">OMARI-SASU, OWUSU AND ASIAMAH JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Omari-Sasu JA. <o:p></o:p>We
yesterday dismissed the application for stay of proceedings made by the first
accused-appellant-applicant (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) and
reserved the reasons to be read today. We now proceed to deal with the said
reasons as follows.<o:p></o:p>This
is a repetition of an application by the applicant for stay of proceedings in
the Fast Track High Court being presided over by our brother Farkye JA—sitting
as an additional High Court judge pending the determination of the applicant’s
Interlocutory appeal against the ruling of our said brother who has refused to
stay his proceedings. The appellant brings his application under rule 27A of
the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Rules, 1998 (CI 21) which provides: “The Court
may in any interlocutory appeal, civil or criminal before it, grant stay of
proceedings pending the determination of the interlocutory appeal subject to
such terms as the Court considers fit.” (The emphasis is ours.)<o:p></o:p>Section
27 of the Interpretation Act, 1960 (CA 4) provides: “In an enactment made after
the passing of this Act, ‘shall’ shall be construed as imperative and ‘may’ as
permissive and empowering.” This means that in considering the present
application, we have a discretion in either granting or refusing to grant the
application depending upon the merits of the application.<o:p></o:p>The
reasons why the present application has been brought are set out in paragraphs
(4) and (5) of the applicant’s affidavit which was filed on 14 November 2002
and are 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">“(4)
That on 25 October 2002 my counsel raised objection to the mode of trial,
stating categorically that, given the charges which are complicated or
intricate in character, the involvement of all the paraphernalia of the
criminal machinery, demanding the prosecution of the matter by a principal
state attorney and other state attorneys being led by the Director of Public
Prosecutions himself, the numerous witnesses to be called and the varied legal
issues involved in the case, I can only have a fair trial if the mode of trial
is on indictment rather than by summary trial. <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">(5)
That the complicated character of the trial would, I am told, involve the
calling of several witnesses, many knotty legal issues would arise and the time
of the trial would take a long time, coupled with the maximum sentence of 25
years that goes with the charge of defrauding, assuming—though not for one
moment admitting—that I am convicted on that particular charge.”<o:p></o:p>Learned
counsel for the applicant elaborated on the above q</main>