THE REPUBLIC vs. DISTRICT COURT EX PARTE: JOYCE AMO ESHVN, DICKSON SAMPONG (INTERESTED PARTY) [2021]DLHC11196

THE REPUBLIC vs. DISTRICT COURT EX PARTE: JOYCE AMO ESHVN, DICKSON SAMPONG (IN... [2021]DLHC11196

Date	2021-06-17
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CR/0492/2021
Citation No.	[2021]DLHC11196

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE RUBY ARYEETEY

CHARLES QUANSAH (FOR THE APPLICANT)

DIVINE DOTSE TETTEY (FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY)

[2021]DLHC11196
																																						<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>DISTRICT COURT<o:p></o:p>(RESPODENT)<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE: JOYCE AMO ESHVN<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>DICKSON SAMPONG (INTERESTED PARTY)<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: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

DIVINE DOTSE
TETTEY (FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY)<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;This application is brought invoking the supervisory
jurisdiction&nbsp; of&nbsp; this court for an order for certiorari
directed at the District Court, Sowutuom to remove and bring up for the purpose
of being quashed the ruling of the court dated 19th February, 2021 in suit No.
A4/ 41/ 21, pursuant to Order 55&nbsp; Rule 7
(1) of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47). The facts leading
to this case are that the Petitioner/ Interested Party (hereinafter referred to
as 'the interested&nbsp; Party')&nbsp; caused&nbsp;
a&nbsp; Divorce&nbsp; Petition&nbsp;
to&nbsp; be issued out of the registry
of the District Court, Sowutuom against the Respondent/Applicant&nbsp; (herein referred&nbsp; to as the 'Applicant')&nbsp; on the&nbsp;
22nd day of January, 2021 for the reliefs endorsed thereon. Subsequently
to that the Applicant filed an answer to the&nbsp;
Respondent's Petition for Divorce on the 16th day of February, 2021.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Out of ignorance of the procedure, Applicant attached
Exhibits to the Answer she filed on the 16th day of February, 2021 because she
was not represented by Counsel and did not know it was against the procedural
principles of pleadings. The Interested Party also caused a Reply to be filed
on the 16th day of February, 2021. On 19th February, 2021, the District Court,
Sowutuom, in delivering its ruling on the divorce petition filed by the
Interested Party brought the matter to close without taking evidence as to
whether or not the marriage was broken down beyond reconciliation.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Magistrate based his ruling on a non-existence or
otherwise fraudulently procured divorce certificate which the court had already
found to be fake. In reaching the conclusion that the divorce certificate was
fake , the Magistrate ordered two police men to escort the Interested Party to
identify and bring the person who prepared the fake certificate for the Interested
Party before him on 5th February,2021. After a few hours, the two police
men returned to the Court in the company of the Interested Party and a staff of
the Ga Central Municipal Assemble who was alleged to have prepared the fake
divorce certificate for the Interested Party.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Being dissatisfied with the conduct of the Interested
Party, the Magistrate reprimanded him and indicated that he was prepared to
cause the Interested Party to lose his job as a Military person for procuring a
fake divorce certificate and adjourned the matter to the 19th&nbsp; February, 2021. On the 19th day of February,
2021, the Magistrate granted an alimony of Twenty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢20,000.00)
in the Applicant's favour and proceeded to state in the ruling that the
marriage had already been dissolved in the District Court, Asamankese. The
Magistrate failed to further apprise himself of the fact that the divorce
certificate was fake as earlier found, which meant that the marriage between
the Applicant and the Interested Party still subsists.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;A search was subsequently conducted in the registry of
the District Court, Asamankese to ascertain the veracity of the purported
proceedings which might have given birth to the divorce certificate the
Magistrate relied on. The search results from the Asamankese District Court
clearly showed that no such matter as claimed by the Interested Party had ever
been before that Court. The Registrar of the District, Asamankese in responding
to a letter written by the Applicant's Solicitors requesting for the record of
the proceedings indicated that the divorce&nbsp;
certificate bearing the seal of the Magistrate and Registrar of the
District Court, Asamankese did not emanate from the District Court, Asamankese
as there were no record of proceedings to that effect.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The facts recounted so far clearly shows that the
District Court, Sowutoum erred forfailing to ascertain why the Interested Party
filed a new Divorce <o:p></o:p>