NII NUEH ODONKOR vs. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ECONOMIC AND ORGANIZED CRIME OFFICE, BANK OF GHANA AND ECOBANK GH. LTD HEAD OFFICE [2015]DLCA8294

NII NUEH ODONKOR vs. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ECONOMIC AND ORGANIZED CRIME OFFICE... [2015]DLCA8294

Date	2015-05-07
Suit No.	SUIT NO. HI/86/2015
Citation No.	[2015]DLCA8294

OFOE J.A

ACQUAYE J.A

TORKORNOO J.A

JACQUELINE AVOTRI FOR 1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

ALEXANDER MARTIN FOR APPELLANT/APPELLANT

[2015]DLCA8294
																																						<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" >NII NUEH ODONKOR<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT/APPELANT)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">vs.<o:p></o:p>THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ECONOMIC
AND ORGANIZED CRIME OFFICE, BANK OF GHANA AND ECOBANK GH. LTD HEAD OFFICE<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT NO. HI/86/2015&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 7TH MAY, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JACQUELINE AVOTRI FOR 1ST DEFENDANT/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">

ALEXANDER MARTIN FOR
APPELLANT/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>

</div><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">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">

OFOE
J.A, ACQUAYE J.A, TORKORNOO J.A<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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 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>OFOE,J.A:<o:p></o:p>The appellant was before the High Court with
a motion:<o:p></o:p>“…TO SET ASIDE ORDER OF
CONFISCATION AND FORFEITURE AND FOR AN ORDER OF RELEASE AND DEFREEZE OF ACCOUNT
INHERENT JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT: 1992 CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 296 CLAUSE
(a) AND (b): sec 38(1)(a)(i) AND 2(), SECTION 47,50(1) AND(3),51 OF ECONOMIC
AND ORGANIZED CRIME OFFICE ACT 2010(ACT 804): ORDER 19 RULE 1(1) OF CI 47”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This
was after an earlier High Court had made an order forfeiting his funds in his
accounts with the ECOBANK. Details of the facts will unfold in this opinion.<o:p></o:p>Before I proceed into the substance of the
appeal let me briefly dispose off a jurisdictional issue raised by the
respondent, EOCO. It contends that the applicant by operation of C.I 19 rule 9
of the Court of Appeal Rules was out of time when he sought to challenge the
forfeiture orders made by the court on the 19th February 2013. I
think there is no doubt the forfeiture order sought to be impugned by the
applicant was made on the 19th February 2013 and the motion to set
aside that order was filed by the applicant on the 14th of January
2014. From the date of the forfeiture order ie 19th February 2013
the applicant had an unfettered right of 3 months within which to appeal and
further 3 months with the leave of the court to complain on appeal, if he was
so minded. This is by virtue of rule 9 of the Court of Appeal rules. He did not
appeal against the order but rather filed the motion to set aside the
forfeiture order.&nbsp; By rule 9(2),
calculation of the appeal period shall be from the date of the decision
appealed against and not from the date the order or decision came to the
applicant’s notice, as contended by his counsel. The forfeiture order was made
on the 19th February 2013 and it is from this date that the appeal
period is calculated.An appeal, as is common knowledge is to give a party the
right to testthe decision of a lower court at a higher forum, in our case
testing the High Court’s judgment in the Appeal Court. Where a party loses this
right of appeal he is forever barred from subsequent challenge of the trial
court’s judgment or order. By the authorities the only circumstances he can
challenge such judgment after forfeiting this right of appeal by effluxion of
time is where the judgment or order is void and such void orders can be set
aside at anytime. For such void orders are considered not only bad but
incurably bad. They are automatically null and void. One of the methods for
attacking a void order is by motion. Refer to the case of Kumnipa II vrs Ayirebi (1987-88)1 GLR 265 at 285. My understanding
of the applicant’s motion before the High Court was therefore to question the
order made by the trial judge on the 19th of February 2013 on the
grounds that the forfeiture order was void. He was entitled to and there is no
issue of time for the EOCO to complain of. Applicant is under a duty to
establish that the orders of EOCO made on the instant date were null and void
and nothing more. He would therefore in this court not be allowed to stray in
his submissions into other areas that properly belong to an appeal. <o:p></o:p>Now the reason for this application can be
summarized as follows:<o:p></o:p>That in the month of November 2011 the
appellant, who I will refer to as the applicant in this appeal, received into
his bank account with ECOBANK, the 3rd respondent in this case, an
amount of $22,500 from a Roxanne Sprankle. He could not access this amount
because he was told by his bankers that the 1st respondent, EOCO,
had frozen his accounts with a subsequent court confirmation of the freeze. He
was not notified of the freezing of his accounts but when he visited the
offices of the EOCO he was told by Dr. Philip Anderson that the investigations
will take about a year and he would be invited anytime they needed him. Out of
frustration he left the country with some friends in search of greener
pastures. He returned in November 2013, about a year. This time with assistance
of counsel, he went to the EOCO where he was told that his money has been
transferred into the offices exhibit account at Bank of Ghana. To know what
exactly happened, hi</main>