ADONGO PROSPER vs. REGIONAL POLICE COMMANDER, TAMALE AND THE PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY, AG’S DEPARTMENT, TAMALE [2008]DLHC7084

ADONGO PROSPER vs. REGIONAL POLICE COMMANDER, TAMALE AND THE PRINCIPAL STATE ATT... [2008]DLHC7084

Date	2008-04-14
Suit No.	SUIT NO. E 12/22/08
Citation No.	[2008]DLHC7084

HIS LORDSHIP G.S. SUURBAAREH J

ISSAH MAHAMUD FOR APPLICANT RESPONDENT ABSENT.

[2008]DLHC7084
																																						<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" >ADONGO PROSPER<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>REGIONAL POLICE COMMANDER, TAMALE AND THE PRINCIPAL STATE
ATTORNEY, AG’S DEPARTMENT, TAMALE<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, TAMALE]<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">SUIT
NO. E 12/22/08&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 14TH
APRIL, 2008<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>ISSAH
MAHAMUD FOR APPLICANT <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">

RESPONDENT ABSENT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>By
his motion on notice for judicial review brought under Order 55 of the High
Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007, CI 47 rules 1, 3 and 4, the applicant is
seeking an order of “INJUNCION RESTRAINING the 1st Respondent from arresting
the Applicant from the Northern Region and handing him over to the Central
Regional Police until the due process of the law has been followed” is also
claiming damages and compensation for degrading treatment. <o:p></o:p>In
his affidavit in support of the motion, the applicant however went on to depose
that he was infact arrested on 7th January 2008, and detained in cells until
9th January 2008, during which he alleged he was subjected to severe beating as
well as degrading and inhuman treatment resulting in his experiencing pains
which necessitated his attendance at hospital. He then denied having committed
ay crime at Cape Coast and concluded that in the circumstances, it would be
contrary to law and an infringement of his human rights, if the Tamale police
were to have him over to the police at Cape Coast and then prayed for the
reliefs set out in the opening statement in this ruling. The relevant averments
are those contained in paragraphs 6, 7,8,9,10,11 through to 14 of the affidavit
in support of the motion. Proceeding these paragraphs, he had deposed in
paragraphs 4 and 5 how he got to know one Janet Akwaboa at Cape Coast and how
she came to Damongo to continue her education and in whose company he was
arrested on 7th January 2008 on their visit to Tamale. In what is termed the
applicant’s statement of case, the matters deposed to in the affidavit in
support of the motion were repeated in a narrative form with a bit more details
as to why he was at Tamale with Janet Akwaboa and the manner in which his
arrest was carried out and why he had to attend hospital as well as his
impression of the treatment meted out to him by the police. This was followed
by a litany of authorities. <o:p></o:p>The
applicant’s statement of case, which was filed on 24th January 2008, was
followed on 4th March 2008 by an affidavit from Janet Akwaboa in support of the
motion in which she corroborated the applicants averments about how he got to
know her and her decision to move from Cape Coast to Damongo as well as the
circumstances in which they came to be arrested at Tamale where she said she
leant that the applicant was suspected of having abducted her and which fact
she said she denied before the police. She then concluded by deposing that she
was nineteen years of age and, in support thereof, exhibited a copy of her National
Health Insurance identification card bearing her photograph and age. <o:p></o:p>Even
though the case was adjourned on 28th February 2008 and hearing notices ordered
to be served on the Respondents, which was duly carried out, both respondents
not only failed to file any affidavit in opposition to the motion papers, but
also failed to turned up in Court and for which the Court called upon the
applicant to move his motion on 14th March 2008. Referring to the motion papers
with particular reference to the rules under which it was brought and the
reliefs being sought, counsel for the applicant submits that from the averments
in paragraph 9 to 12 of the affidavit in support of the motion, not only was
there no basis for the arrest of the applicant, but also for the treatment
meted out to him. Learned counsel then refers to section 80 of the Criminal and
Other Offences (Procedure) Act 1960 Act 30 on the procedure for executing the
arrest of someone suspected to have committed a crime and submits that in the
case of applicant, a warrant of arrest should have been issued by the District
Court in Cape Coast and sent to Damongo to be endorsed by the District Court
there before the applicant could be arrested for a crime alleged to have been
committed at Cape Coast. Concluding, he referred to the affidavit field by
Janet Akwaboa on 4th March 2008 in support of the motion and submits that the
deponent was the Janet Akwaboa being referred to by the applicant in his
affidavit as well as his statement of case and further that the deponent was
above eighteen years of age and that her depositions also corroborated those of
the applicant about the inhuman treatment suffered at the hands of the police<o:p></o:p>The
motion is said to have been brought under Order 55 rr 1, 3 and 4 of the High
Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004, CI 47. Whilst rule 1 sets out the situation
where an application for judicial review will be appropriate, rule 3 deals with
the time for bringing such an application. Rule 4, on the other hand, deals
with the mode of making such an application. From the above, the motion can
therefore be said to have been brought under rule 1 of Order 55 or CI 47. The
rule provides as follows:— <o:p></o:p>“1. An application for <o:p></o:p>(a) an order in the nature
of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari or quo warranto; Or <o:p></o:p>(b) an injunction
restraining a person from acting in any public office in which the person is
not entitled to act; or <o:p></o:p>(c) any other injunction, <o:p></o:p>