IN THE MATTER OF THE REPUBLIC vs. DISTRICT TRIBUNAL (GA MANTSE PALACE) KANESHIE EX PARTE: AKWASI BEKOE AND IN THE MATTER OF AKWASI BEKOE (APPLICANT/APPELANT) vs. KWAMI TETTEH [2006]DLCA6726

IN THE MATTER OF THE REPUBLIC vs. DISTRICT TRIBUNAL (GA MANTSE PALACE) KANESHIE... [2006]DLCA6726

Date	2006-06-09
Suit No.	H1/52/2004
Citation No.	[2006]DLCA6726

ASIAMAH JSC

AKAMBA J.A

ANIN YEBOAH J.A

SAMMY ADDO FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

MR G.Y. TSAHEY FOR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

[2006]DLCA6726
																																						<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" >IN THE MATTER OF THE
REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>DISTRICT TRIBUNAL (GA
MANTSE PALACE) KANESHIE<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE: AKWASI BEKOE
AND IN THE MATTER OF AKWASI BEKOE&nbsp;&nbsp;(APPLICANT/APPELANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KWAMI TETTEH<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/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">

H1/52/2004&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 9TH JUNE 2006<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>SAMMY ADDO FOR
APPLICANT/APPELLANT <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">

MR
G.Y. TSAHEY FOR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>ASIAMAH JSC, AKAMBA J.A,
ANIN YEBOAH J.A<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>ANIN YEBOAH <o:p></o:p>The
respondent herein issued a writ of summons against the Appellant herein for a
liquidated sum of ¢1,357,600.00 before the District Court Grade 1, 28th
February Road, Accra.&nbsp; The writ was filed
on 18-02-93 and was accompanied by an affidavit of the respondent as the writ
was placed on the undefended list. <o:p></o:p>The
respondent's summons was met with a statement of defence and counter-claim. The
counterclaim claimed ¢2,500,000.00 general damages for trespass.&nbsp; The appellant later in course of the
proceedings filed a motion to amend his statement of defence.&nbsp; It is not clear from the record that the
motion was moved by the appellant or his counsel. In the ruling of the Tribunal
dated the 16/04/1999 it was made clear that the motion was not moved.&nbsp; The ruling of 16/04/1999 was as a result of
an objection by counsel for the respondent herein against the admission of
evidence which learned counsel for the appellant was of the view that it had a
foundation from the amendment of the statement of defence. <o:p></o:p>Learned
counsel for the applicant who was dissatisfied with the ruling of the Tribunal
on the admissibility of the evidence did not lodge any interlocutory appeal
against the said ruling.&nbsp; On the 7/5/1999
the appellant rather filed an application for directions.&nbsp; I had some difficulty in my apprehension of
the application.&nbsp; It is not clear whether
the application sought to compel the Community Tribunal to perform some
official duty or for an order of the High Court to direct the Tribunal in any
manner.&nbsp; For a fuller record, the body of
the motion is reproduced below: <o:p></o:p>"APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS. <o:p></o:p>TAKE
NOTICE that Sammy Adoo Esq. of Counsel for and on behalf of the applicant
herein will move this Honourable Court praying for directions and other
necessary orders on the conduct of suit No. 106/93 entitled KWAMI TETTEH VRS
AKWASI BEKOE before the community Tribunal of Kaneshie in terms of the
accompanying affidavit." <o:p></o:p>Even
though the title of the application is such that one is tempted to think that
the appellant was moving the High Court for a prerogative writ under the then
existing Order 59 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules LN 140 A, 1954, the
motion never made mention of any prerogative writ.&nbsp; The motion merely sought an order for
directions from the High Court in a matter pending before the Community
Tribunal. Indeed the motion was not brought under any known rule of the High
Court Civil Procedure Rules.&nbsp; It also
never sought to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to do
justice.&nbsp; However, the motion was accompanied by a statement
under the then rules that is, Order 59 rule (2) of LN 140 A of 1954.&nbsp; One is tempted to presume that the statement
attached to the motion makes the application appear to be in the form of a
prerogative writ.&nbsp; The relief sought by
the application, however, does not appear on the face of the statement as
required by Order 59 rule 2 (2) in an application for a prerogative writ.&nbsp; In sic rather sought to set aside the lower
court ruling dated 16/4/99. <o:p></o:p>The
affidavit in support of the motion which gives the facts of the matter shows
that the appellant was applying for an order from the High Court to exercise
its supervisory jurisdiction over the lower court. Paragraph 10 of the said
affidavit states as follows: <o:p></o:p>"10.&nbsp; That unless this Honourable Court invokes its
supervisory jurisdiction to direct the Tribunal to apply to (sic) rules on
pleading and evidence substantial injustice will be done to the
applicant". <o:p></o:p>In
my respectful opinion the above deposition in the affidavit leads me to
conclude that the appellant was invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the
High Court.&nbsp; The application was
eventually heard by Aryeetey J (as he then was) and on 10/12/2002, he dismissed
the application.&nbsp; He held that the application
was not properly before him as the appellant had not applied for any of the
remedies spelt out in section 16 of the Courts Act, (Act 459) of 1993 and that
the process before him was not an appeal. <o:p></o:p>The
appellant has lodged this appeal on two main grounds to set aside the ruling of
Aryeetey J (as he then was.)&nbsp; The first
ground of appeal was stated as follows: <o:p></o:p>"The cou</main>