The Court of Appeal in Kumasi has upheld the decision of the High Court, affirming that the Asokwa District Court acted within its jurisdiction in entertaining an application to enforce a bond to be of good behaviour against Abdul Yussif Ganiyu, popularly known as Shola, a broadcaster with Zuriah FM in Kumasi, Ashanti Region.

The unanimous decision was delivered by a three-member panel comprising Justice Kwamina Baiden, who presided, Justice Dr. Poku Adusei, who read the lead judgment, and Justice Abature.

The appellate court dismissed Shola’s appeal, holding that the District Court neither acted in excess of jurisdiction nor wrongfully assumed jurisdiction when it entertained the prosecution’s application.

The case stems from Shola’s conviction on December 2, 2021, for offensive conduct conducive to the breach of the peace, contrary to Section 207 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29).

Following his conviction by the Asokwa District Court, the Zuriah FM broadcaster was fined 500 penalty units or, in default, to serve three months’ imprisonment. He was also ordered to execute a bond to be of good behaviour, which he complied with after paying the fine.

According to the court, the prosecution later alleged that Shola had engaged in further conduct likely to breach the peace while the bond remained in force.

Instead of filing fresh criminal charges, the Attorney General invoked Section 299(2) of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30), and applied to the District Court to enforce the bond by imposing a custodial sentence.

Shola challenged the application, arguing that the prosecution had adopted the wrong legal procedure and that any fresh allegation should have been prosecuted through a new charge sheet. He further maintained that the District Court had become functus officio after concluding the original criminal case and, therefore, lacked jurisdiction to hear the application.

The District Court dismissed the objection, prompting Shola to seek judicial review at the High Court through applications for certiorari and prohibition.

However, the High Court ruled that the District Court had acted within its jurisdiction and that any disagreement over the interpretation of the law should be addressed through the appellate process rather than judicial review.

Still dissatisfied, Shola proceeded to the Court of Appeal.

Delivering the judgment, Justice Dr. Adusei stated that the criminal jurisdiction of the District Court is conferred by statute and is not dependent on the statutory provisions cited by parties in their applications.

The court held that even if the prosecution relied on an incorrect statutory provision, that alone could not deprive the District Court of its jurisdiction.

The appellate court further explained that questions relating to the interpretation or application of statutory provisions are legal issues to be determined during proceedings or on appeal, and do not automatically render a court’s proceedings a nullity.

It also rejected Shola’s contention that the District Court had wrongfully assumed jurisdiction, stressing that every court has the authority to determine, as a preliminary issue, whether it has jurisdiction to hear a matter.

The Court of Appeal therefore affirmed the High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal, clearing the way for the Asokwa District Court to continue hearing the application to enforce the bond.