THE REPUBLIC vs. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT ACCRA EX – PARTE KOFI JAMES AMOAKOHENE , ELIZABETH AMA ADADE [2017]DLHC11941

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT ACCRA EX – PARTE KOFI JAMES AMO... [2017]DLHC11941

Date	2017-07-25
Suit No.	SUIT NO. GJ 707/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC11941

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE PATIENCE-MILLS TETTEH

JAH JOSIAH FOR PLAINTIFF

MOHAMMED SAHNOON FOR INTERESTED PARTY

[2017]DLHC11941
																																						<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><a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a>THE
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT ACCRA <o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EX – PARTE KOFI JAMES
AMOAKOHENE<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>ELIZABETH AMA ADADE<o:p></o:p>(INTERESTEED)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

SUIT
NO. GJ 707/2017&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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&nbsp;JULY 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 2pt;">

JAH JOSIAH FOR PLAINTIFF <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE PATIENCE-MILLS TETTEH<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: black; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0in;">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>This
is a motion for an order
for Certiorari to quash the judgment of the District magistrate Court dated 4th
April 2017 on grounds of breach of rules of natural justice.<o:p></o:p>The affidavit in support deposed to the facts
that the interested party, the plaintiff in the case for which judgment is the
subject matter of this application, instituted an action claiming maintenance for her child and
on the 3rd of March 2017 default
judgment was granted
against the applicant herein with substantial costs. The applicant
contended that during the proceedings in the District Court the interested
party was given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of her claim
consequently he applied for the
proceedings to enable him cross- examine the interested party but before his
counsel could cross examine the interested party the subject matter of the suit
therein, fifteen(15) year old Stephanie Amoakohene was sent out of the
jurisdiction without permission from the court and consent from the applicant
who is the father of the child. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Applicant aggrieved instructed his lawyer to
file a contempt application against the interested party. The counsel for the
applicant duly filed the contempt application and the counsel for the applicant
on the return date suggested to the Court that having filed the contempt
application the case should be adjourned
sine die until the interested party has purged herself of the contempt.
According to the applicant the interested party stopped appearing in court to
avoid service of the contempt application on her. It is the case of the
applicant that having duly informed the family and Juvenile Court of the
pendency of the contempt application, it was wrong for the magistrate to continue hearing
the case without
notice to the applicant and
deliver judgment on the matter against the established principles of natural
justice and fair hearing. The applicant contended that the judgment so
delivered on the 3rd of March 2017 was utterly made without jurisdiction when
the proceedings were a subject matter of contempt application before the High
Court and the interested party had not yet taken steps to be purged of the
contempt. It is the case of the applicant that he was not given opportunity to
cross-examine the interested party and state his defence, much against the principles of natural justice which the applicant contended is a clear error of law on the face of the
record and applicant therefore invokes the supervisory jurisdiction of this
court to quash the judgment so delivered.<o:p></o:p>