THE REPUBLIC vs. RICHARD HLORMADOR EX PARTE: ATTIYYATUL AZIZ ABDULLAH [2019]DLHC6812

Date	2019-07-12
Suit No.	SUIT NO: CR/70/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC6812

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO

GARY NIMAKO MARFO FOR THE RESPONDENT/APPLICANT

NELSON ATANGA AYAMDOO FOR THE APPLICANT/RESPONDENT

[2019]DLHC6812
																																						<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>RICHARD HLORMADOR<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE: ATTIYYATUL AZIZ ABDULLAH<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION, COURT 6),
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: CR/70/2019 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 12TH JULY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>GARY NIMAKO MARFO FOR THE
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT<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">

NELSON
ATANGA AYAMDOO FOR THE APPLICANT/RESPONDENT<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 JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO<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">

</div>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Introduction:<o:p></o:p>[1]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Just as the existence of the inherent
jurisdiction of a superior court is indisputable and
certain, there is a statutory basis and scope for the review of a ruling made
by the High Court and same is therefore not debatable<a href="file:///F:/ackaa%20boafo%20RULLING/Aaa.kab.REVIEW.Republic%20v.%20HLORMADOR.2019.Reviewed.docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a>. This Court
is called upon by the Respondent/Applicant to review its decision of June 13,
2019 pursuant to “Motion on Notice: Application for Review and/or Bail Review”.
<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[2]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
Applicant herein has filed the instant application for review of the judgment
of this Court pursuant to Order 42 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, (2004) C.I.
47. Accompanying the application is a 12 paragraph initial affidavit
with no exhibit of the Applicant. A 22 paragraph supplementary affidavit in
support of the review application was also filed on July 1, 2019. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[3]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
Applicant filed the instant application the same day of the judgment and
sentence and prayed the Court for a review of the decision or in the
alternative bail pending the hearing of the review. When the application came
before the Court the Court found that there was an Affidavit of Service and
after further enquiry from Counsel for the Applicant, the Court was satisfied
that Counsel for the Applicant for the Contempt had been served and was aware
of the hearing but did not to attend and therefore the Court proceeded with the
hearing.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[4]