THE REPUBLIC vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT ASHANTI – MAMPONG EX PARTE KWABENA DANSO (NANA YEBOAH KODIE ASARE II INTERESTED PARTY). KWAME ADOM-APPIAH FOR THE APPLICANT INTERESTED PARTY BY HIMSELF. [2009]DLHC8257

THE REPUBLIC vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT ASHANTI – MAMPONG EX PARTE KWABENA DA... [2009]DLHC8257

Date	2009-10-26
Suit No.	SUIT NO. E10/01/2010
Citation No.	[2009]DLHC8257

HIS LORDSHIP MR. JACOB B. BOON

[2009]DLHC8257
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE COURT ASHANTI – MAMPONG<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE
KWABENA DANSO<o:p></o:p>(NANA YEBOAH
KODIE ASARE II INTERESTED PARTY).<o:p></o:p>KWAME
ADOM-APPIAH FOR THE APPLICANT<o:p></o:p>INTERESTED
PARTY BY HIMSELF.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT,
KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO. E10/01/2010&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:
26TH OCTOBER, 2009<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

HIS LORDSHIP MR. JACOB B. BOON<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>The applicant has
applied to this court for certiorari to quash the ruling by Mampong District
Court of 21 August, 2009 in a matter before that court where he is charged with
one count of abetting the second accuse person to act as a chief contrary to sections
20(1) and 63(a) of the Criminal Offences Act of Ghana 1960, Act 29, and the
Chieftaincy Act 2008, Act 759 respectively. At the hearing of the case, his counsel
raised a preliminary objection bordering on the jurisdiction of the court to try
the applicant in that the case touches on a cause or matter affecting
chieftaincy on the ground that the interested party, who is complainant in the
criminal charge, is involved in a chieftaincy dispute with another person over
the Yonso stool, and if the applicant is convicted by the district court that
will amount to a declaration in favour of the interested party as the occupant
of the said stool. The District Court over ruled the objection. In its ruling,
the court said the matter before it was a simple criminal trial that has
nothing to do with a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. The Magistrate
therefore ruled his court was clothed with jurisdiction to try the
applicant.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;It is against this ruling that the applicant
has prayed for certiorari to issue to quash same. Additionally, he applied for
prohibition to stop the court from continuing the trial of the case for want of
jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The interested
party opposed the application, and in my view filed a statement of case that
explicitly explains the grounds on which the prerogative orders of certiorari
and prohibition can be sustained. And I here repeat one of the Supreme Court
Revisions indicating the conditions for the grant of certiorari cited by the
interested party. That case is the Republic v. High Court, Accra; Ex parte Industrialization
Fund for Developing Countries and Another (2003-2004) SCGLR348 holding (1):<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“Certiorari is a discretionary remedy
which would issue to correct a clear error of law on the face of the ruling, or
an error which amounts to lack of jurisdiction in the court so as to make the
decision a nullity. In the case of errors of law or fact not apparent on the
face of the ruling, the avenue for redress is by way of appeal…”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Mampong
District Court was acting within its jurisdiction when it gave the ruling now
under attack. The applicant and his counsel have failed to show that the ruling
is bad on the face of it; they have further failed to draw my attention to any
error which amounts to a lack of jurisdiction on the part of the district court
so as to make its ruling a nullity. Since there are no errors manifest on the
face of the ruling as so explained, certiorari will not be the proper remedy to
quash the ruling of a court of competent jurisdiction. If the applicant is
aggrieved by the decision of the court, the proper remedy available to him is
an appeal, and not a resort to the prerogative remedy of certiorari. The
Supreme Court so decided in Republic v. High Court, Accra; Ex parte Soku and Another
(1996-97) SCGLR525 at 530, quoting with approval Morris LJ in Rv.
Northumberland Compensation Appeals Tribunal; Ex parte Shaw (1952) IKB 338 at
357:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>