OKUDZETO vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

The appellant, who worked as a storekeeper for his father at Adidome, was charged with eleven counts of stealing, ten relating to money and one relating to a kente cloth belonging to his father. He was acquitted on nine counts but convicted on count 4 for stealing £G200 and on count 11 for stealing the kente cloth. The prosecution alleged that while the complainant was away, the appellant had access to the store and the complainant’s house keys, and suspicious banking transactions and property found in the appellant’s room linked him to the alleged thefts. The appellant’s defence was that the £G200 had been lent to him by his father and that the kente cloth had been given to him for safekeeping through a relative. The Supreme Court examined whether the conviction on the £G200 count was supported by the prosecution’s case and whether the taking of the kente cloth fell within illustration (b) to section 120(1) of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). Portion of judgment: “The appellant was charged with eleven counts of stealing... was found guilty on one count of stealing £G200 count four and another count count eleven of stealing the kente cloth...” and “On count four... his defence was that the amount was given to him by his father... On count eleven... the appellant’s defence was that the cloth was given to him by his father... for safekeeping.”