THE REPUBLIC vs. THE CENTRAL DISCIPLINARY BOARD NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS GHANA POLICE SERVICE AND 2 OTHERS EX PARTE FRANCIS LORLEMTEY [2019]DLHC6900

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE CENTRAL DISCIPLINARY BOARD NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS GHANA POLI... [2019]DLHC6900

Date	2019-04-15
Suit No.	SUIT NO: GJ/675/18
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC6900

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR ESQ. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2019]DLHC6900
																																						<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 CENTRAL DISCIPLINARY
BOARD NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS GHANA POLICE SERVICE AND 2 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE FRANCIS
LORLEMTEY<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, 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/675/18&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 15TH APRIL, 2019<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 ESQ. 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">

</div>The Applicant, until the 18th of May, 2018
was a Police Officer of the rank of a corporal. He was charged together with
one G/Corporal Ernest Kensah, for misconduct, contrary to Regulation 82(1)
under Police Service Regulations, 2012, C.I 76. The two are said to have
travelled from Tamale to Garu when they checked into a hotel with arms. Based
on a tip off that they were robbers the Police and Military swooped in on them
and took them to Bolgatanga and eventually to Accra. The two appeared before a
Regional Service Inquiry presided over by ASP William Apraku, the Adjudicating
Officer, who found Corporal Kensah guilty for keeping arms and ammunitions
without authority but found the Applicant not guilty. He was acquitted and
discharged. This was approved by the Regional Disciplinary Board.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Upon review by the Central Disciplinary Board it
rather overturned the concurrence of the Regional Disciplinary Board of the determination
by the Adjudicating Officer, who found the Applicant not guilty and substituted
a penalty of dismissal of the Applicant. It is this decision of dismissal that
has precipitated the present application whereby the Applicant has 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 directed at the Respondents to bring to the court for the purpose of
being quashed the decision of the Central Disciplinary Board to substitute a
dismissal in place of discharge and acquittal against the Applicant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>THE CASE OF
THE RESPONDENTS<o:p></o:p>The Respondents have contested the claim of the
Applicant that the Northern Regional Disciplinary Board in accordance with
Regulation 86(4) and (5) of C. I 76 ordered a service enquiry by appointing an
Adjudicating Officer to conduct the enquiry, and that the findings and
recommendations were reviewed by the Regional Disciplinary Board and agreed
with the Adjudicating Officer and was transmitted to the Central Disciplinary
Board. To Respondents in accordance with the mandate of the Central
Disciplinary Board under Regulation 91(2) of C. I. 72 the Central Disciplinary Board
reviewed the record and imposed a punishment of dismissal. Respondents deny
that when an Adjudicating Officer serves a written charge on a Defendant, he is
obliged to inform the Defendant of a right to submit a written statement in
explanation of an offence and that there was no obligation for the Defendant to
be informed that his explanation was satisfactory or not. Further that the
decision had received all the necessary reviews from the bodies set up by law
and the Central Disciplinary Board had acted within its powers by reviewing the
decision and calls for the dismissal of the application. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>GROUNDS FOR INVOKING CERTIORARI<o:p></o:p>Certiorari
is one of the several writs that falls under the exercise of the High Court’s
powers of judicial review. The power of judicial review in the form of
supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court over all lower courts, administrative
bodies and inferior bodies is founded under article 141 of the Constitution,
where the Constitution grants power to the High Court over all lower courts and
lower adjudicatory bodies in the exercise of that jurisdiction to issue orders
and directions including orders in the nature of habeas corpus, certiorari,
mandamus, prohibition and quo warranto
for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement of its supervisory
powers. Section 16 of the Courts Act, 1993, Act 459 echoes this powers granted
to the High Court under article 141 of the Constitution. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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>For
an Applicant to be entitled to the grant of certiorari it has been held in a
number of cases that the writ would lie if there had been lack of jurisdiction,
or excess of jurisdiction, or breach of the rules of natural justice or there
had been an error apparent on the face of the record etc. In fact the
categories of matters that would trigger the issuance of certiorari is deemed
not be closed. In REPUBLIC v HIGH COURT;
EX PARTE APPIAH [1999-2000] 2 GLR 420 the Supreme Court noted as follows:<o</main>