REPUBLIC vs. TSIKATA [2005]DLHC1030

Date	2005-07-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2005]DLHC1030

HENRIETTA ABBAN JA

OSAFO SOMPONG DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (WITH HIM AUGUSTINE OBOUR) FOR THE REPUBLIC.

EVO DANKWA (WITH HIM MAJOR (RTD) R S AGBENOLO) FOR THE ACCUSED.

[2005]DLHC1030
																																						<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">TSIKATA<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT. ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[2003-2005]
1 GLR 336<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>OSAFO
SOMPONG, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (WITH HIM AUGUSTINE OBOUR) FOR THE
REPUBLIC.<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">

EVO
DANKWA (WITH HIM MAJOR (RTD) R S AGBENOLO) FOR THE ACCUSED. <o:p></o:p>

HENRIETTA
ABBAN JA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUGDEMENT<o:p></o:p>Henrietta Abban JA. <o:p></o:p>The
accused person, has through his counsel, made an oral application in this court
praying the court to stay proceedings in this case pending the hearing and
determination of a law suit and an interim injunction which he has filed at
another High Court with concurrent jurisdiction against the Chief Justice and
the Attorney-General.<o:p></o:p>The
general principles of the criminal law as stated by Lord Goddard CJ in R v
Chairman, County of London Quarter Sessions; Ex parte Downes [1954] 1 QBJ at 6,
DC are that:<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">“Once
an indictment is before the court, the accused must be arraigned and tried
thereon unless (a) on motion to quash . . .it, is held defective in substance
of form . . .; (b) matter in bar is pleaded and the plea is tried or confirmed
in favour of the accused; (c) a nolle prosequi is entered by the
Attorney-General, which cannot be done before the indictments found; or (d) if
the indictment disclosed an offence which a particular court has no jurisdiction
to try . . .”<o:p></o:p>The
court has a general and inherent power to protect its process from abuse where
a charge has been properly laid and there is evidence fit to go to the jury.
The judge has no power to stay proceedings simply because he thinks a
conviction is unlikely. In the English case of Director of Public Prosecutions
v Humphrys [1977] AC 1 at 55, HL Lord Edmund-Davies concluded 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">“While
judges should pause long before slaying proceedings which on their face are
perfectly regular, it would indeed be bad for justice if in such fortunately
rare cases as Reg. v Riebold [1967] 1 W. L. R. 674 their hands were tied and
they were obliged to allow the further trial to proceed . . .are vested with
the power to do what the justice of the case clearly demands . . .”<o:p></o:p>Having
listened to arguments from both sides, I am of the opinion that there is no
merit in the application which the accused has brought. He has cited three
eases in support of the said application, ie In Balogun v Edusei 2 G &amp; G
123:<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
Executive deporting certain persons when an application for habeas corpus had
already been served on the Minister for Interior and therefore the notice of
the pendency of the application had been brought to it.”<o:p></o:p>