REPUBLIC VRS. CIRCUIT COURT JUABEN EX-PARTE: NANA OPOKU ACHEAMPONG I INTERESTED PARTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL (GJ10/13/2025) [2024] GHAHC 516 (16 December 2024)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, COMMERCIAL DIVISION HELD AT KUMASI ON MONDAY 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE CHARLES KWESI BENTUM - HIGH COURT JUDGE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUIT NO. GJ10/13/2025 IN THE MATTER FOR AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BY WAY OF CERTIORARI AND THE REPUBLIC VRS THE CIRCUIT COURT JUABEN - RESPONDENT EX-PARTE: NANA OPOKU ACHEAMPONG I - APPLICANT BM 81, BOMFA – ASHANTI REGION ATTORNEY-GENERAL - INTERESTED PARTY ASHANTI REGION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME: 11:20AM. JUDGMENT: The instant suit is for Judgment. On 23rd October, 2024, the Applicant instituted the suit for Judicial Review by way of Certiorari. He seeks an Order for the purpose of bringing up to this Court, “Orders” according to Applicant, made by Her Honour Rosemarie Afua Asante (Mrs), sitting at the Circuit Court, Juaben and dated 22nd August, 2024, in the case entitled: “The Republic Vs Nana Opoku Acheampong I, Court Case No. 77/24.” The Facts upon which the Applicant relies: According to the Applicant, he is the Chief of Bomfa Traditional Area and that, the Complainant is his Adontenhene. He deposed per his Affidavit in Support of the Motion that, a criminal action was commenced against him on a charge of causing unlawful damage contrary to Section 172 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). The Applicant deposed further that, the Complainant accused him of breaking the padlock of the Bomfa Palace and further that, he has been interdicted by his Juabenhene. It is his case that, prior to the said criminal action against him, the Complainant and some other persons commenced an action against him at the Judicial 2 Committee of the Juaben Traditional Council for his destoolment and that, the said matter is still pending before the said Judicial Committee. According to him, the Complainant has admitted that, the question whether or not he has been interdicted by Juabenhene is pending before the Judicial Committee of the Juaben Traditional Council. He deposed that, at the closure of the prosecution’s case against him, in the criminal action, his Lawyer filed a submission of no case and raised the issue that, the matter before the Court is a cause or matter affecting Chieftaincy and that, until the determination of whether or not he is a Chief, the Circuit Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. He deposed further that, on 22nd August, 2024, the Circuit Court, delivered its Ruling and held among others that it had jurisdiction to hear a criminal matter commenced against him and also that, the Circuit Court determined that, he has been interdicted as a Chief. It is the Applicant’s contention that, the decision of the Honourable Circuit Court dated 22nd August, 2024, is a nullity since the Circuit Court does not have the power to determine whether or not he remains the Chief of Bomfa until the final determination of the action at the Juaben Traditional Council. The Version of the Respondent and the Interested Party: It is their case also that, the Applicant is standing trial at the Circuit Court Juaben presided over by Her Honour, Rosemarie Afua Asante (Mrs) for the offence of causing unlawful damage contrary to Section 172 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). 3 It was deposed that, the Applicant pleaded “not guilty” to the charge for which the case proceeded to trial. It was deposed further that, the prosecution called all its witnesses, tendered its evidence in support of the charge and closed its case. Thereafter, the Applicant, according to the Respondent and interested party, made a submission of no case for which the Court delivered its ruling on 27th August, 2024, holding that, that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence, in support of the charge against the Applicant, requiring him to make a defence. They contend that, the Circuit Court, Juaben never made an enquiry into the interdiction or abdication of the Applicant as a chief and that, the Learned trial Judge, stated that, the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence to prove that, the Applicant had already been interdicted prior to committing the offence of causing unlawful damage. That, the Learned trial Judge did not determine whether the Applicant should be interdicted or not and did not enquire into whether the Applicant should remain a Chief of Bomfa or not. They contended that, the trial is to determine the criminal liability of the Applicant for the offence of causing unlawful damage only and not an enquiring into any cause or matter affecting Chieftaincy. That the Court did not exceed its jurisdiction or make any Order in excess of its jurisdiction in hearing the criminal case involving the Applicant. Both parties filed their Statement of Case and addressed the Court setting out fully their arguments and the law impinging on same for the consideration of the Court. The opinion of the Court. 4 Article 141 of the 1992 Constitution provides in its marginal note, for the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court as follows: “The High Court shall have supervisory jurisdiction over all lower courts and any lower adjudicating authority; and may, in the exercise of that jurisdiction, issue orders and directions for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement of its supervisory powers.” Under Article 126(1)(b), the Judiciary shall consist of such lower courts or tribunals as Parliament may by Law establish. Section 39(a) of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) (as amended) provides for the establishment of the lower courts and tribunals of Ghana, including the Circuit Court. Order 55 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, C. I. 47 makes provision for Judicial Review and in its Rule 1(a) for an Order, among others, in the nature of Certiorari. The ground for seeking a quashing Order from this Honourable Court, by the Applicant is stated in the second page of its Statement of Case thus; “The Respondent exceeded its jurisdiction when it proceeded to assume jurisdiction to hear and determine the case pending before it.” There seems to be a paradox here. Either the Court has original jurisdiction to hear and determine the case pending before it but had gone beyond such jurisdiction or in legal parlance had exceeded the jurisdiction that it 5 originally has or it has no original jurisdiction whatsoever to hear and determine the case pending before it, in legal parlance, want of jurisdiction. So, is the Applicant asserting that, the Respondent exceeded its jurisdiction and at the same time did not have the jurisdiction that it exceeded, which is which? This Court cannot jump into the arena of conflict and substitute the case brought by the Applicant to this Court. The Court do not see the leg on which the ground for Certiorari stands as the Applicant speaks from both sides of his mouth. The Court expresses concern here by reason that, Order 55 r 4(2)(c) makes it mandatory for the grounds on which the relief or remedy is sought to be stated. Where the ground is uncertain, unclear or ambiguous, the Applicant cannot expect to obtain a relief or remedy in the circumstance. It is trite that, jurisdiction is the authority which a Court has to decide matters presented to it for its decision. It was held in the case of Acheampong v Republic [1997 – 1998] GLR 26, SC that, the jurisdiction of a Court is the authority of a Court to entertain or decide a case. It connotes the limit or the extent of the power of the Court. In the case of Republic v High Court (Human Rights Division) Ex-parte; Kudjo Anku [2017 – 2018] 2 SCGLR 317, the Court held that, jurisdiction attaches to the Court and not a Judge. From the foregoing, it is observed that, jurisdiction relates to the due functioning of a Court of competent jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction may be inherent, meaning 6 that, that authority of the Court to entertain or decide the case is not derived from any external source such as by Constitution and/or statutes. The Court may on the other hand derive its jurisdiction to entertain a suit from a statute or some form of legislation or even the Constitution. It is in these circumstances that, a Court can either be bereft of jurisdiction or have jurisdiction but may go beyond it. It is not in dispute from the facts presented by the rival parties in this suit that, the Applicant was charged with the offence causing unlawful damage contrary to Section 172(1)(b) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). It is also not in dispute that, on the charge of causing unlawful damage, the Prosecution led evidence in support of the charge through Witnesses and closed its case. The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to hear and determine a charge of causing unlawful damage contrary to Section 172(1)(b) of Act 29 is not in dispute. Why then will the Applicant Claim that, the Court below exceeded its jurisdiction when the Applicant at all time material before the Court below, knew that, he was being tried on a charge of causing unlawful damage. In the opinion of the Court, the Circuit Court has original jurisdiction to hear and determine the case brought before it by the prosecution against the Applicant as the Accused therein. 7 This Court having examined the affidavit evidence before it, do not find any fact supporting a want or excess of jurisdiction by the Circuit Court in the case involving the Applicant before it. This Court from the evidence before it, finds that, the Circuit Court did not determined that, the Applicant had been interdicted as a Chief. Upon the close of the Prosecution’s case and the subsequent filing of a submission of no case, the Court below set out to deliver its Ruling. From the Ruling, the Court made stated inter alia: “I have looked at the elements comprising the ingredients of the offence of unlawful damage, there has not been any of the principles that warrant a submission of no case and therefore, the accused is to open his defence, accordingly.” This Court do not find that, the Circuit Court determined whether the Accused Person before it is/was the Chief of Bomfa or whether he has been destooled as a Chief. The matter as to whether the Applicant is a Chief or not was not before the Circuit Court and same was not determined to rob the Court of jurisdiction or slip the Court into exceeding its criminal jurisdiction. The Application is dismissed for being without merit. (SGD.) 8 H/L JUSTICE CHARLES KWESI BENTUM (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT) LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Angela Anyimadu with Linda Nyarkoah Adjei holding the brief of Kwamina Mensah for the Applicant. Welfleet Osei Gyasi with Roselyn Duker for the Respondent and Interested Party. 9