THE REPUBLIC vs. THE DISTRICT COURT (PREVIOUSLY CALLED COMMUNITY TRIBUNAL) EX PARTE; MAAME EKUA KRAIKUE & AUGUSTINA KRAIKUE AND NANA BUAH MPOHOR [2016]DLCA4550

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE DISTRICT COURT (PREVIOUSLY CALLED COMMUNITY TRIBUNAL) EX PA... [2016]DLCA4550

Date	2016-11-28
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/7/16
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA4550

HONYENUGA J.A. (PRESIDING)

GYAN J.A.

SUURBAAREH J.A.

MRS. SOLITAIRE MONHAJER FOR THE APPELLANT

NO REPRESENTATION FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2016]DLCA4550
																																						<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 DISTRICT COURT (PREVIOUSLY CALLED COMMUNITY TRIBUNAL)<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EX
PARTE; MAAME EKUA KRAIKUE &amp; AUGUSTINA KRAIKUE (APPLICANTS/APPELLANT)
AND NANA BUAH MPOHOR (INTERESTED PARTY/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, CAPE
COAST]<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
APPEAL NO.&nbsp; H1/7/16 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;28TH
NOVEMBER, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MRS. SOLITAIRE MONHAJER FOR THE APPELLANT<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">

NO REPRESENTATION FOR THE RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HONYENUGA J.A. (PRESIDING), GYAN J.A., SUURBAAREH J.A.<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="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" 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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>HONYENUGA, J.A.<o:p></o:p>This is an appeal by the applicants/appellants against
the Ruling of the High Court, Sekondi dated the 26th day of August,
2014 and 5th day of September, 2014 respectively which court refused
an application for Judicial review under Order 55 rule 1 of C.I. 47 by the
applicants/appellants (hereinafter called the appellants).&nbsp; The Interested party/respondent shall
hereinafter be called the respondent.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts of this appeal were that the late Francis
Edoi Kraikue died intestate sometime ago and left behind houses numbered
House/No. 29/2, House No. 3/2A, and House No. 3/2B and other properties
situated at Wassa Mpohor.&nbsp; The appellants
are part of the children of the deceased who together with the respondent who
is the customary successor applied for and obtained letters of administration
to administer the Estate of Francis Edoi Kraikue (Deceased).&nbsp; When the said administrators could not with
accord distribute the estate of the deceased among the beneficiaries, the
appellants representing their siblings took action against the respondent and
one of the widows in the Community Tribunal now the District court, Takoradi.&nbsp; After the appellants closed their case, both
counsel for the parties before the then Community Tribunal consented that the
Registrar of the court should distribute the estate of the deceased and the
court made an order to that effect.&nbsp; On
the 23rd day of September, 1997, the Registrar distributed the
estate and prepared a document evidencing the distribution with the Registrar
and the parties having signed same.&nbsp;
However, the document evidencing the distribution was not filed and put
before the said court for a consent judgment or decision to be entered for the
parties.&nbsp; The parties and the
beneficiaries without any challenge or complaint peaceably enjoyed their share
of the distributed estate from 1997 until 2013 when the appellants brought the
instant application with leave of the court to quash the distribution made in
1997.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Upon hearing the submissions of counsel for the
parties, the learned trial judge refused the appellant’s application for
judicial review to quash the distribution of the estate and dismissed
same.&nbsp; The learned trial judge first
dismissed the said application on the 26th August 2014 without
giving reasons but on the 5th September 2014, he delivered the full
ruling with reasons.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Aggrieved by the ruling of the High Court, Sekondi, the
appellants filed the instant appeal based on the following grounds:-<o:p></o:p>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp; That the judgment is against the
weight of evidence.<o:p></o:p>(b)&nbsp;&nbsp; That the High Court, Sekondi in
holding that the distribution of the estate as contained in Exhibit “A” was not
backed by a Court Order failed to take into account the Orders of the District
Court (Previously called Community Tribuna), Takoradi dated 3/6/1997.<o:p></o:p>(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the trial High Court, Sekondi
erred in law when it held that even if the District Court (previously known as
Community Tribuna) was wrong in the distribution of the estate the remedy
available to the applicants/appellants was an appeal and not certiorari.<o:p></o:p>(d)&nbsp; That the trial High Court, Sekondi
in holding that since the parties to the suit had signed Exhibit “A” before the
Community Tribunal, Takoradi, the application for certiorari ought to be refused
failed to take account to the fact that the distribution of the estate was done
in breach of PNDCL 111 and th</main>