TSATSU TSIKATA vs. THE REPUBLIC [2006]DLCA6641

Date	2006-04-28
Suit No.	CRIMINAL MOTION NO. H3/10/06
Citation No.	[2006]DLCA6641

PIESARE JA (PRESIDING)

TWENEBOA-KODUA JA.

ANIN-YEBOAH JA

PROF. E. V. O. DANKWA FOR APPLICANT

AUGUSTINES OBUOR (ASA) FOR THE REPUBLIC

[2006]DLCA6641
																																						<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" >TSATSU
TSIKATA<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CRIMINAL MOTION NO.
H3/10/06&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 28TH APRIL, 2006<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">AUGUSTINES OBUOR (ASA) FOR
THE REPUBLIC. <o:p></o:p>

PIESARE JA (PRESIDING), TWENEBOA-KODUA
JA., ANIN-YEBOAH JA.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>PIESARE,
J.A <o:p></o:p>This
is an application brought under rule 27A of C.I. 21, seeking an order to stay
the proceedings before the High Court presided over by Henrietta Abban (J.A.),
sitting as Additional High Court Judge. <o:p></o:p>It
is clear from the application that the applicant is an accused person standing
trial before that court for offences, including: Causing Financial Loss to the
STATE. <o:p></o:p>The
prosecution has closed its case. The applicant has opened his defence, and he
says he has given an indication to the trial court, that he was waiting for the
outcome of this application before deciding to close his case. <o:p></o:p>The
facts which prompted this application are that, in the course of the defence,
the applicant applied to the court for an order directed to the Country
Director of the International Finance Corporation to appear before the Court to
testify in favour of the applicant, because according to the applicant the role
played by the International Finance Corporation in respect of the Valley Farms
Project, was crucial to his defence. <o:p></o:p>The
trial court obliged, and made the order sought; but when counsel for the
International Finance Corporation appeared in court, he raised an issue of
immunity in favour of the Country Director. The trial judge heard argument on
that issue, and eventually accepted the immunity version; and accordingly
discharged the order directed to the Country Director. <o:p></o:p>This
request, having failed the applicant again made a second request. This time,
for an order directed to the International Finance Corporation itself to appear
in court to testify in his favour. Counsel for the International Finance
Corporation again appeared, and argued that the said Corporation acted through
its officials, and since the officials were immune from court process, no
useful purpose would be served to order the Corporation itself to testify. The
trial court again heard arguments on this, and eventually ruled in favour of
the immunity. <o:p></o:p>The
applicant therefore brought this application upon grounds that he has appealed
against the trial judge's order; that he therefore wants this court to stay the
proceedings before the court; that the trial judge's failure to order the
International Finance Corporation disregarded his fundamental human right under
Article 19(2) (2) of the 1992 Constitution; that the trial judge's failure to
order the International Finance Corporation to testify deprived the court to
have the benefit of evidence from that corporation whose role had influenced
decisions taken by the applicant. That, the applicant's appeal has a good
chance of success; that if the proceedings of the court below are not stayed,
the applicant's case will be prejudiced. <o:p></o:p>These
grounds will be dealt with in detail, in the course of this ruling. The
prosecution did not file any affidavit in opposition. But the Honorable
Attorney-General Mr. Ayikoi Otoo, opposed the application on two main legal
grounds, namely (1) that the trial judge acted properly in her order refusing
to compel the International Finance Corporation to testify, and (2) that the applicant
had not shown any "exceptional circumstance" to warrant a stay of the
proceeding in the court below. <o:p></o:p>The
details of our views on these rival claims, will soon appear in detail in the
course of this ruling. <o:p></o:p>The
application was brought under Rule 27A of C.I. 21. This reads: <o:p></o:p>"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." <o:p></o:p>