THE REPUBLIC vs. THE CIRCUIT COURT (8), ACCRA AND KOIWAH INVESTMENT CO. LTD EXPARTE: EXPARTE: DANIEL MENSAH QUAYE [2014]DLHC9253

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE CIRCUIT COURT (8), ACCRA AND KOIWAH INVESTMENT CO. LTD EXPA... [2014]DLHC9253

Date	2014-08-25
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BMISC 683/2014
Citation No.	[2014]DLHC9253

P. BRIGHT MENSAH JUSTICE OF THE APPEAL SITTING AS AN ADDITIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGE

OSAFO BUABENG FOR THE APPLICANT

GABRIEL PWAMANG FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT

NO APPEARANCE FOR OR BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

[2014]DLHC9253
																																						<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>THE CIRCUIT COURT (8), ACCRA AND KOIWAH INVESTMENT CO. LTD<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>EXPARTE: EXPARTE: DANIEL
MENSAH QUAYE<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
ACCRA]<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. BMISC 683/2014&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 25TH AUGUST,
2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>OSAFO BUABENG FOR THE
APPLICANT<o:p></o:p>GABRIEL PWAMANG FOR THE 2ND
RESPONDENT<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">

NO
APPEARANCE FOR OR BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT<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">

P.
BRIGHT MENSAH JUSTICE OF THE APPEAL SITTING AS AN ADDITIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGE<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">

</div>The Supreme
Court per Adinyira JSC has stated that it is a basic principle of common
law that Certiorari and Prohibition would be automatically granted to quash a
judgment or prevent a biased judge from hearing a suit upon satisfactory proof
of breach of any principles of the rules of natural justice<a href="file:///C:/Users/aggie/Desktop/JUSTICE%20BRIGHT%20MENSAH/THE%20REPUBLIC%20V.%20CIRCUIT%20C0URT%20&amp;amp;%20KOIWAH%20INVESTMENTS.docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a>.
<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Applicant
in this present case moves the court for:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
“order of Certiorari directed
to the 1st Respondent Circuit &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>Court (8) herein, Accra to bring to
this court for the purposes&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>of being quashed the ruling of 9th
December 2013, in which the 1st Respondent court set aside its
earlier ruling/order dated 31st July, 2013 and restored the judgment
of the 1st Respondent dated 22nd November 2007 and for a
further order of Prohibition restraining
the 1st respondent court presently constituted
from further hearing suit intituled ‘Koiwah Invest-ment Company Limited vrs
Lands Commission and Others’ Suit No. C1/343/2007”,&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>upon grounds
stated in the accompanying affidavit and for any further order(s) as this court
may consider fit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The caveat is,
has the Applicant made a sufficient case, enough to entitle him to such orders
he seeks?&nbsp; And is it the general position
of the law that it is automatic as posited by Adinyira JSC that a party
is always invariably entitled to such remedies when he has established his
case?&nbsp; This is the premise on which I
shall proceed to consider the present case before my consideration.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The application is brought under Order 55 of the High Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C I 47) invoking the supervisory jurisdiction
of this court.&nbsp; By Order
55 r 1 an application for:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(a)&nbsp;
An order in the nature of Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari or Quo
warranto; or<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(b)&nbsp;&nbsp; An injunction restraining a person from
acting in any &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>