THE REPUBLIC vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT, ADJABENG EX PARTE CHRISTIAN HEDO (AUTO MECHANIC) AND OTHERS [2017]DLHC3474

THE REPUBLIC vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT, ADJABENG EX PARTE CHRISTIAN HEDO (AU... [2017]DLHC3474

Date	2017-12-20
Suit No.	SUIT NO.GJ/1253/17
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC3474

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2017]DLHC3474
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">THE
REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT, ADJABENG<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE CHRISTIAN HEDO (AUTO MECHANIC) AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (GENERAL
JURISDICTION DIVISION), 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">

SUIT
NO.GJ/1253/17&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 20TH DECEMBER, 2017<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE
OF THE HIGH COURT<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>Applicants have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction
of the High Court under Order 55 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Procedure
Rules, C.I 47 for orders in the nature of certiorari to bring to the court for
the purpose of being quashed a ruling of the District Court, Adjabeng dated the
10th August, 2017.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>All the Applicants herein who were Defendants in Suit
A9/60/2017 before the District Court, were sued by the Interested Party and one
Beauty Feehi Zawor for an order of recovery of possession of land, an order for
perpetual injunction, cost and any further reliefs the court may deem fit to
make. The Interested Party had sought these orders as the 1st to 10th
Applicants occupied portions of the land at Osu where they ply their trade. In
the statement of defence they claimed that they were put on the land by the 11th
Applicant and based on an application filed by the Plaintiffs therein in that
suit, Justin Oppong Peprah, was joined to the suit as 11th Defendant
at the District Court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Upon the 11th Applicant being joined to the
suit, 11th Applicant then moved the District Court for an order to
strike out the writ for want of jurisdiction. The basis of the application was
to the effect that the District Court was precluded from dealing with matters
regarding land where the value of the land was in excess of Ghc20.000. The 11th
Applicant further argued that the subject matter of the litigation which the
Interested Party sought for an order of recovery, being a land at Osu, the
value was in excess of Ghc500.000 and the District had no jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>To Applicants instead of the District Court ruling on
the application before the court, it rather brushed aside the application and
delved into the merit of the case before it by granting judgment in favour of
the Interested Party without the benefit of evidence at trial and also made an
order striking out the name of the 11th Applicant herein to the suit
before him. It is what the Applicants deem to be the failure of the District
Court to determine its application that has precipitated its invocation of the
supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court for certiorari to quash the ruling
of the District Court dated 10th August, 2017 on the grounds of:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US">a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Breach of the rules of natural justice<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US">b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Want of jurisdiction<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US">c.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Error apparent on the face of the record<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Interested party, on the other hand, has resisted the
application and called for its dismissal as being unmeritorious. First in the
affidavit deposed to by Beauty Feehi Zawor she claim that the Applicant to the
application lacks capacity to bring this action invoking the supervisory
jurisdiction of the High Court for certiorari. She further </main>