Ratio Decidendi



AMPONSAH AND ANOTHER
V.
MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND ANOTHER IN RE THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION ACT, 1958 AND IN RE AMPONSAH AND ANOTHER AND IN RE AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD SUBJICIENDUM

(1960) JELR 65722 (CA)    
Court of Appeal  ·  6 Jun 1960 ·  Ghana
 · 
Other Citations
[1960] GLR 140 - 146
CORAM
KORSAH C.J,VAN LARE J.A. ,OLLENNU J.

Ratio Decidendi

Core Terms Beta
court
section
appeals
court of appeal ordinance
divisional court
dr. danquah
habeas corpus
ambit of section
member of this court
original jurisdiction
respect of a claim
writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum
appeal lies
civil procedure rules
instant appeal
preventive detention act
supreme court
civil cases
civil right
civil rights
common pleas
creation of the courts ordinance
criminal case
dictum of the late earl of birkenhead l.c.
divisional court’s decision
elementary rule of construction
first appeal
following cases
general rule
high court of chancery
issue of law
judgment of the court
judgments of other courts
jurisdiction of the court of appeal
learned judge
legal issues
number of cases
order of the divisional court
ordinary rules of grammar
provisions of this ordinance
question of the jurisdiction of the appeal court
relevant statute
said detainees
specific reference
subject-matter
such declaration
such foreknowledge of the facts
support of the objection
support of this contention dr. danquah
usual meaning of the language

KORSAH, C.J.: The appellants having been detained under section 2 (1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1958 applied to Simpson J., sitting in the Divisional Court, Accra, for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum directed to the Minister of Defence and to the Director of Prisons, to show cause why the said detainees should not be released. The learned judge having refused to make the order prayed for, the instant appeal to this court has been lodged against the Divisional Court’s decision.

Dr. Danquah, counsel for appellants, has objected to this court as presently constituted with van Lare, J.A. as a member thereof. Dr. Danquah submits that this matter being one of two appeals of the same character, the first of which had been disposed of by a court constituted by three judges of whom van Lare, J.A. was one, it is not competent for van Lare J.A. to be a member of this court for the hearing of what counsel describes as the second of the two appeals. Counsel further submits that the …

There's more. Sign in to continue reading.

judy.legal is the comprehensive database of case law and legislation from Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria. Gain seamless access to over 20,000 cases, recent judgments, statutes, and rules of court.

Get started   Login