IN THE MATTER OF AMA GYAMFUAH vs. PINAMANG GENFI AND IN THE MATTER OF THE REPUBLIC vs. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT, KUMASI EXPARTE PINAMANG GENFI [2018]DLCA6182

IN THE MATTER OF AMA GYAMFUAH vs. PINAMANG GENFI AND IN THE MATTER OF THE REPUBL... [2018]DLCA6182

Date	2018-11-28
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/30/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLCA6182

MARIAMA OWUSU J.A (PRESIDING)

HENRY A. KWOFIE J.A

AMMA GAISIE J.A

[2018]DLCA6182
																																						<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" >IN THE MATTER OF AMA
GYAMFUAH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>PINAMANG GENFI AND IN
THE MATTER OF THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
COURT, KUMASI EXPARTE PINAMANG GENFI<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, KUMASI]<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. H1/30/2018&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 28TH
NOV 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>HENRY KWOFIE J.A:<o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, Kumasi dated the 7th of
December 2012.&nbsp; The judgment the subject
of the appeal followed an application by the defendant/applicant/appellant
Pinamang Genfi for Judicial Review in the nature of certiorari to quash the
judgment of the District Magistrate Court, Kumasi.&nbsp; The High Court dismissed the application.<o:p></o:p>The
facts of the case culminating in this appeal are that the plaintiff/interested
party issued a writ of summons against the defendant/applicant/appellant at the
District Court, Kumasi for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; an order for a declaration of title
and recovery of possession of all that piece and parcel of land situate at a
place commonly called SUAME-KUMASI Plot No. 18 Block A “Site S and sharing
boundaries with Nurom Hotel which the defendant has presently trespassed unto.<o:p></o:p>ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An order for ejection of defendant from
the said parcel of land forthwith.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>Judgment
was given on the 17th February 2012 in favour of the&nbsp; interested party who was the plaintiff by the
District Court, Kumasi presided over by His Worship K.B. Filson. <o:p></o:p>The
defendant/applicant/appellant aggrieved by the said decision and contending
that the District Court had breached the rules of natural justice applied to
the High Court for an order of Judicial Review in the nature of Certiorari to
quash the said judgment.&nbsp; The High Court
upon hearing the application dismissed same on 7th November 2012 and the
judgment thereof is the subject matter of this appeal.&nbsp; By a Notice of appeal filed on 28th June 2013
pursuant to an order for extension of time to appeal granted on 24th June 2013,
the defendant/applicant/appellant lodged the instant appeal on the following
grounds:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the ruling is against the weight
of evidence<o:p></o:p>b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Additional grounds to be filed on
receipt of record of proceedings <o:p></o:p>Pursuant
to leave granted by the Court of Appeal on 20th December&nbsp; 2017, the applicant/appellant filed three (3)
additional grounds of&nbsp; appeal as follows:<o:p></o:p>i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The High Court judge misconstrued the
case of the defendant/applicant/appellant and disabled himself from making a
fair and impartial decision when he stated that land matters require more
stringent proof whereas the matter before him was not a land matter but an
application for certiorari<o:p></o:p>ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The High Court judge misconstrued the
case of the defendant/applicant/appellant and disabled himself from making a
fair and impartial decision when he stated that: <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“there is evidence that the applicant had
committed the very indiscretion she complained about” and that “how can the
applicant say her counterpart had been visiting the trial magistrate in the
chambers when she did the very thing she complains about”<o:p></o:p>iii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the High Court judge erred when he
said most of the complaints levelled by the applicant had been answered
convincingly by the adversary whereas the germane issue of delivering judgment
when the defendant/appellant had not been heard was not addressed and
determined by him.<o:p></o:p>The
judgment appealed from described in the Record of Appeal as ruling is at pages
32 and 33 of the Record of Appeal whilst the Notice of Appeal filed on 28th
April 2018 is at page 34 of the Record of Appeal. <o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the applicant/appellant in arguing the appeal argued ground I of the
original ground of appeal then ground 2 and 3 of the additional ground of
appeal. Both counsel for the respondent/respondent and the interested
party/respondent also filed written submissions.<o:p></o:p>Having
perused the written submissions of counsels in the case, I have found it
unnecessary to discuss all the arguments made in support and against the appeal
because I have decided to rest the decision in this appeal on a legal point
raised by counsel for the plaintiff/interested party touching on the propriety
of this appeal.&nbsp;&nbsp; Counsel for the
interested party has submitted that the instant appeal is not properly before
the Court and same should be dismissed in limine. Counsel referred to rule 9 of
the Court of Appeal Rules 1997 (C.I.19) dealing with the time limit for
appealing and contended that although the appeal was filled pursuant to an
extension of time granted by the Court of Appeal, the appeal was nevertheless
filed outsi</main>