REPUBLIC VRS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT AKROPONGEX-PARTE: SETH , INTERESTED PARTY OTENG (GJ10/12/2025) [2025] GHAHC 62 (6 February 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, COMMERCIAL DIVISION HELD AT KUMASI ON THURSDAY 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE CHARLES KWESI BENTUM - HIGH COURT JUDGE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUIT NO. GJ10/12/2025 THE REPUBLIC VRS THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT - RESPONDENTS AKROPONG - ASHANTI EX-PARTE: KWABENA SETH H/NO. AH-0690-8837 NSONYAMEYE - ASHANTI DORIS OTENG - INTERESTED PARTY KUMASI ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME: 12:27PM. JUDGMENT: The present Application seeks an Order of Certiorari for the decision of the District Court, Akropong, Ashanti dated 29th August, 2024, in the case of Doris Oteng v Kwabena Seth, Suit No. A9/12/2023, to be brought up to this Honourable Court for the purpose of being quashed. The ground of the Applicant for bringing the instant Application at page 14, second paragraph of Applicant’s Written Submission is that, the Rent Magistrate did not investigate the matter and therefore did not hear him. The undisputed facts of the Application is that, the Interested Party herein lodged a complaint stated to be nuisance and intervention to the Rent Officer sitting at the Rent Control Office, Akropong in Ashanti. The Rent Officer took evidence and determined the complaint lodged and forwarded his determination to the Rent Magistrate sitting at Akropong. The Rent Magistrate affirmed the recommendation of the Rent Officer and decided as follows: “The Respondent is hereby given up to ending of September, 2024, to stop hosting church and counselling at the premises. “ It is the Rent Magistrate’s decision which is the subject of the instant Application. The Court has read all the processes filed in the Application including the Statement of Case of the parties per respective Counsel, setting out fully arguments and legal authorities. Underlying the instant Application, is the question of whether a Rent Magistrate is obliged upon a reference from a Rent Officer to take evidence of the matter referred to the Court or has authority to affirm the recommendation of the Rent Officer without taking evidence. There has been varying and conflicting positions on the question posed. One school of thought per the case of Bhagwah (Ghana) Ltd v Thome [1970] CC31 is that, there is no need for any independent inquiry of the complaint and the Rent Magistrate may proceed to make his order from the record of proceedings placed before the Court from the Rent Tribunal. The other school of thought holds a contrary view that, when a reference is made from the Rent Tribunal, the Magistrate should act judicially and must determine the complaint referred to the Court after considering the proceedings before the Rent Officer and give opportunity to the parties to be heard afresh on the findings of fact made by the Rent Officer. This is the position in Republic v Rent Magistrate; Ex-Party: Kessie [1968] GLR 207 and Republic v Accra Rent Magistrate; Ex-Party: Ofosu-Amaah [1965] GLR 613. The above conflicting decisions are not binding on this Court. The decisions are that of the High Court which are Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction to this Honourable Court. This Court shall follow the Statutory dictates of the Rent Act (ACT 220) and its regulations L. I. 369. This Court however, finds no statutory provision binding on a Rent Magistrate to re- open the case forwarded to the Court by a Rent Officer. In such situation, the discretion to re-open the case or not is that of the Rent Magistrate or the Court to be exercised judicially. In the case before this Court, it is not disputed that, the Applicant herein failed to avail himself of the opportunity to put his side of the case before the Rent Officer during the taking of evidence. He did not show up. When the matter was forwarded to the Rent Magistrate, the step he took was not to indicate his interest in the Court re-opening the matter for him to be heard. He rather applied for an Order Setting Aside the recommendation of the Rent Officer before the Rent Magistrate. Having failed to avail himself the opportunity to be heard before the Rent Officer and also his Application for the Setting Aside of the Proceedings forwarded to the Rent Magistrate and the Court thereby proceeding without further ado to affirm the Rent Officer’s recommendation, the Applicant herein cannot be heard to complain here and now that, his rights to natural justice or to be heard, has been violated. For this reason, the Court finds no merit in the instant Application and dismisses same. There shall be no Order as to costs. (SGD.) H/L JUSTICE CHARLES KWESI BENTUM (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT) LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Isaac Bobi for the Applicant. Adutwumwaa Adarkwa-Yiadom led by Richard Obeng Mensah for the Interested Party 5