THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, FAST TRACK 2, (RESPONDENT) EX PARTE: GHANA LOTTO OPERATORS ASSOCIATION. (APPLICANT) AND NATIONAL LOTTERY AUTHORITY (INTERESTED PARTY) [2009]DLSC5030

THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, FAST TRACK 2, (RESPONDENT) EX PARTE: GHANA LOTTO O... [2009]DLSC5030

Date	2009-02-11
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION J5/7/2009
Citation No.	[2009]DLSC5030

ATUGUBA JSC (PRESIDING)

DATE-BAH JSC

ANSAH JSC

ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC

OWUSU JSC

KIZITO BEYUO FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY.

AURELIUS AWUKU WITH ANDREW OBENG FOR THE APPLICANT

[2009]DLSC5030
																																						<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>HIGH COURT, FAST TRACK 2,<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE:&nbsp; GHANA LOTTO OPERATORS ASSOCIATION. (APPLICANT) AND NATIONAL LOTTERY
AUTHORITY (INTERESTED PARTY)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, 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">

CIVIL MOTION J5/7/2009&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;11TH FEBRUARY 2009<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KIZITO
BEYUO FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY.<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>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>ATUGUBA
JSC (PRESIDING), DATE-BAH JSC, ANSAH JSC, ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC, OWUSU JSC<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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>ATUGUBA, J.S.C:<o:p></o:p>I agree
with the Ruling of my able brother Dr. Date-Bah J.S.C.&nbsp; However I find it necessary to express my
views on certain aspects of t his case.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
first is the ambit of the power of transfer of cases given to the Chief Justice
under S.104(1) – (3) of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), as amended.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It
provides thus:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“104 (1) Subject to the provisions of the
Constitution, the Chief Justice may by order under his hand transfer a case at
any stage of the Proceedings from any Judge or Magistrate to any other Judge or
Magistrate and from one court to another court of competent jurisdiction at any
time or stage of the proceedings and either with or without an application from
any of the parties to the proceedings.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(2)&nbsp; The
order may be general or special and shall state the nature and extent of the
transfer and in any case of urgency the power of transfer may be exercised by
means of a telegraphic, telephonic or electronic communication from the Chief
Justice. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(3) A transfer of a case made by telegraph, telephone
or electronic communication and not confirmed immediately by order signed and
sealed in a manner specified by the Chief Justice or any other person
authorized in that behalf by him shall be of no effect.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>These
provisions are not new:&nbsp; They are a carry
over from the inception of our legal system.&nbsp;
They came up for consideration in Osei
v. The Republic (1968) GLR 704 C.A.&nbsp;
The issue arose and was dealt with by Apaloo J.A. (as he then was)
delivering the judgment of the court at 711 as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“The last submission which was made on behalf of
the first appellant is supposed to be a plea to the jurisdiction of the court
below as constituted.&nbsp; It is said that as
the case originally came before the court constituted by Edusei J. he was
lawfully “seised” of it and he could therefore not be divested of jurisdiction
without a formal order of transfer made by the Chief Justice in accordance with
paragraph 38 of the Courts Decree, 1966 (N.L.C.D. 84). As no such order was
made Amissah J.A., who eventually heard the case, had no jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This argument, whatever its attraction, is not
new.&nbsp; It was made in almost identical
language in Akainyah v. The Republic [1968] G.L.R. 548, C.A., a case in which
Mr. Adade was junior counsel, and was rejected in a judgment delivered by this
court on 1 July 1968.&nbsp;&nbsp; Learned counsel
for the first appellant did not profess ignorance of this decision.&nbsp; His point is, that the Akainyah decision
claimed its authority from a ruling of the full bench in Asare v. The Republic
[1968] G.L.R. 37.&nbsp; Mr. Adade says, the
Asare ruling did not decide the point and the decision in the Akainyah case on
this point was therefore given per incuriam.&nbsp;
Accordingly, Mr. Adade submits in effect, that the point at issue is re
integra and invited us to decide it afresh<o:p></o:p>